Topics:
* 1,260 Days 1 John 5:7, 8 * 2 Chronicles 36:21 * 2 Thessalonians 1:9 * 390 Days/Years
A
* Accepting a Repentant Sinner * Adoption as
God’s Sons * Advocate, Helper, Comforter, or Savior? * Age, Eternal, Perpetual, Everlasting, Immortal, or Forever? * Age-long Fire * Amen *
Animal Sacrifices * Anoint the ‘Most Holy’ or the ‘Holiest
of the Holy?’ * Anointed * Anointing * Antichrists * Apostasy and Apostates * Ark or Chest? * ArtaXerxes *
Astin
B
* BaAl, BeEl, Bel, and El * Babylon (the
Great) * Bible Measurements * Bless or
Praise? * Blest or Happy? * Bodily
Divinity * Book of Enoch * Book of Judges
* Bread on Water * Breath *
Brothers and Sisters of Jesus
C
* Caesarea Philippi * Cain’s Wife * Called and Chosen * Camel or Rope? * Capitals in Bible Names * Captives and Gifts
* Captives of Solomon * Cherubs * Chest of Proofs * ChoBar River * Christian * Cosmos, Arrangement, or World?
* Cross or Pole? * Crowns, Turbans, and
Diadems
D
* David Dancing Naked * Day * Day and Hour * Day of the Lord * Dedicated to Destruction * Demonized Man * Demons * Deuteronomy 10:22 * Did Aaron Personally Make the Gold
Calf? * Did an Angel Want to Kill Moses? *
Did God Create Evil? * Dip or Sop of the Last Supper * Disgusting Destroyer * Dogs *
Downpour * Dragon * Dragon’s Messengers
E
* Earning a Living from Religion * Eating
Jesus’ Flesh and Drinking His Blood * Eating Meat * Eating with Unwashed Hands * Edem (or Eden)
* Egyptian Law of Eminent Domain * Elder or
Overseer * Empowering the Priests *
Eroticism of the Bible * Esther * Eue,
Euan, or Eve? * Eunuchs
F
* Faith * False Brothers *
Fear or Respect? * Fool, Foolish, or Uncaring? * Footstool * Foreign Wives and Children * Foreskin * Fornication or Sexual Immorality?
* Fountains or Springs? * Friends of the
World * Funeral
G
* Gadflies or Stable Flies? * Galilee or
Judea? * Garbage Dump * Gays and Men Who
Have Sex with Men * Genesis 4:7 *
gentiles, Nations, or Ethnics * Gnats or Fleas? * Gods * God’s Chosen People *
Gog the Grasshopper King * Gospel Message *
Gospel of Matthew
H
* Hades * HaMan * Hate,
Dislike, or Care Less for? * Heavens or Sky, Earth or Land?
* Hebrew Songs and Poetry * Hebrews,
IsraElites, Jews, and Semites * Holidays *
Homosexual Relationship Between JoNathan and David? *
Homosexuality and Bestiality * Honest Judge * Hope of All Creation * Horeb * House to House? * House, Temple, or Palace?
* How David Pictured Jesus * How Large Was
Nineveh? * Hypocrite
I
* Image of DaniEl Chapter Two * Immediate
Resurrection to Heaven? * ’In’ * Incest
* In the Name Of * Is Jesus God? * Isaiah 14:12 * IsraEl’s Sin Over Meat
J
* James (Half-brother of Jesus) * JeremiAh
31:37 * JeremiAh 37:5 * Jesus’ Last
Words as a Mortal * Jesus’ Fleshly Brothers and Sisters
* Jew * Job * John * Judging the Angels * Judging the Twelve
Tribes of IsraEl * Judging Your Brothers *
Judgment Day
K
* Kainan * Kill or Murder? * Kingdom
L
* Lachish * Lake of Fire *
Lamp Stands of Revelation * Land of RaMesses or Gesem
(Goshen)? * Large Crowd * Last Days
* Last Lamb * Laying the Temple Foundation
* Leprosy * Lesson in Humility * Living Creatures or Animals? * Lottery or
Lot * Lord’s (Our Father) Prayer * Love
and Brotherly Love * Luke
M
* Making Fun * Man of Lawlessness * Mandrake Apples * Manna *
Mark * Mark 7:19 * Marriage in the
Resurrection? * Mary from Magdala *
Matthew 25:1 * Matthew 27:9 * Matthew
27:52, 53 * Meaning of Psalm 45 *
Meeting of the Lord In the Air * Men That Have Sex With Men
* Messengers * MichaEl *
Milk of God’s Word * Missing Ancestor of Jesus * Mistreatment of Women * MordecAi * Morning Star * Moses’ Sin at the Rock * Moses’ Wife * Mystery
N
* Nahum; the Prophet to the Kurds? * Naos
* Never Die? * New JeruSalem * Nicolaitans * Noble Bereans
O
* One-Woman Man
P
* Paradise * Parvaim or Pharaoh Aim? * Paul’s Letters * People or Men? * Period of the Judges * Perfect Lamb * Perfect Priests * Peter *
Phantom * Pharisees * Poor in Spirit
* Poor Widow * Potter’s Field * Prayer * Pronunciation of C and CH in Greek
Words * Proof of Virginity *
Propitiatory * Purim
R
* Ransom * Religious Titles * Reptiles and Birds * Resurrection * Resurrection of the Righteous * Revelation
20:5 * Revelation and Truth *
Rhinoceros * Rich Man and Lazarus *
Rulers of Persia and Greece
S
* Salt * Salvation *
Satan, Devil, Lucifer, BeElZebub * Science and Inspiration
* Scroll or Book of Life * Scroll or
Sickle? * Seating in the Heavens * Seed
* Seismos * Servants *
Seven Congregations * Seven Stars *
Seventy Weeks * Sexual Immorality *
Should Christians Agree on Everything? * Signal of Release
* Sin of Aaron’s Sons * Sixty-Five Years?
* Soldier in a War * Sons of God * Sor or Tyre? * Soul *
Space, Expanse, or Firmament? * Spanking *
Spiritism * Spirits in Prison *
Spiritual Jews * Star of Raiphan *
Stumble or Trap? * Subjection *
Swearing * Synagogue
T
* Tar Pits or Slime Pits? * Tarshish;
Spain or Carthage? * Ten ‘Lost’ Tribes of IsraEl * Tent * Tent of Proofs *
Terah’s Age When Abram Was Born * The Dead * The Word * Thirty Years *
This was the Scroll #1 * This was the Scroll #2 * Thousand Years or Thousands of Years? *
Three Kings * Time of Difficulty * TO
the East or FROM the East? * Tree of Life * Two Witnesses
U
* Undeserved Kindness or Caring? *
Unforgivable Sin?
V
* Vision of DaniEl Chapter Eight
W
* Was Moses Alone on the Mountain With God? *
Whale or Large Fish? * When Men are In Charge of the Earth
* Who are ‘the Other Sheep?’ * Who Was
Ochozath? * Who Wrote Hebrews? * Who
Wrote the Book of Judges? * Why Were IsraEl’s Leaders
Afraid of Dying? * Wild Animals of DaniEl Seven * Wild Animals of Revelation * Woman and Her
Seed * Women Not Allowed to Speak? *
Won’t Love Their Families * Words of Judgment * Worshiping God in Spirit and Truth
Z
* Zeal
In the Revelation, you’ll read of three periods that, according to the 360-day Hebrew calendar, represents 3-1/2 years. They are:
1. Revelation 11:1, 2:
‘Now, go measure God’s Holy Place, its Altar, and those that are bowing low
there. Pay no attention to the courtyard outside the Holy Place… don’t measure
it, because it has been given to the nations and they’re going to trample the
Holy City under their feet for forty-two months.’
2. Revelation 11:3:
‘Then I’m going to have my two witnesses prophesy for one thousand, two
hundred and sixty days wearing sackcloth.’
3. Revelation 12:6:
‘And the woman escaped into the desert… to a place that God had prepared for
her, where she was to be fed for a thousand two hundred and sixty days.’
4. Revelation 12:14:
‘However, the woman was given the two wings of a huge eagle so she could fly to
her place in the desert where she will be fed for a time, times, and half a
time, and where the snake couldn’t reach her.’
We find the same
prophetic periods mentioned in the book of Daniel (7:25), for there we read:
‘He will then speak grandiose words
And mislead the Holy Ones of the Most High.
He’ll be allowed to change laws and times
For a time, [two] times, and a half.’ (1+2+1/2=3-1/2)
What does all of
this signify?
We don’t wish to enter such fields of speculation (as others have
done in the past). However, note the following:
3-1/2 days (or ‘times’) is exactly half of a week.
So, the prophetic period seems to indicate
half of a period that is started, but then the second half is completed later.
Take for example,
the ministry of Jesus. It lasted for exactly three-and-a-half years; and
thereafter, it appears as though there were three-and-a-half years between his
death and the conversion of the first gentiles.
So in this case, the periods
seem to be speaking of the time during which the kingdom was offered to the
Jews exclusively, and then how long it would be before the
opportunity would be offered to others (the nations, ethnics, or gentiles).
Of course, the
three-and-a-half years of Jesus’ ministry were also his last appeals to the
people of JeruSalem before they were to be totally rejected.
Then it was several years later that we see another three-and-a-half-year period that led up to the
actual fulfillment of that rejection.
For history tells us that the Roman armies
first attacked JeruSalem in 66-CE, then they mysteriously
withdrew to fight another battle (allowing Christians to flee the city per the
instructions of Jesus), before returning to destroy it, its
priesthood and its Temple (the entire Jewish way of worship, according to the Law),
which happened about 3-1/2 years later (in 70 CE).
Also note that there may have been another half of a week between the fall of Jerusalem and the final conquest of Masada (70 to 74-CE).
So, it appears as though these 3-1/2 year periods each made up just half of a whole number. And if so, wherever we can identify a 3-1/2 year beginning period in a prophecy, we might find that there is to be a later 3-1/2 year ending period.
In several other
Bibles, 1 John 5:7, 8 reads:
‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, and these three are one.’
However, Bible manuscripts that were written prior to the Eleventh Century CE
(AD) read quite differently, for the earlier texts don’t say anything about the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost here.
So, it appears as though someone who wanted
to provide scriptural backing for the ‘Trinity Doctrine’ changed this verse
and added those words about 1,000 years after John penned his Gospel.
If you look at the
the context of John the Fifth Chapter, you will see that it was speaking about the three witness-bearers of Jesus…
the water (baptism), the Holy Spirit (gr. Pneuma – Breath), and his shed blood.
So it is obvious that in this context, the substituted words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost makes
the rest of what John wrote illogical, because he wasn’t talking about that.
You might also look at how this verse is translated in several other Bibles,
for most modern translators agree that these words were never part of the original text.
At 2 Chronicles
36:21, the Septuagint speaks of the land fulfilling its ‘Sabbaths.’
However,
the Hebrew word that is used there is shavta, which really means,
‘rest.’ So, the Masoretic (Hebrew) text of 2 Chronicles 36:21 reads:
‘To fulfill Jehovah’s Word by JeremiAh until the ground pays off all its days
of desolation, the ground will rest (heb. shavta) until seventy
years are fulfilled.’
There is a special
expression in the Hebrew, which means to observe or keep the Sabbath; it is
‘lishmor shabat,’ and this is not found in the Hebrew text here.
Why is this small
detail important?
It appears as though some have tried to twist the words in
order to create some compromise between what the Bible says and what secular
chronology says (which chronology is far from being 100%
accurate).
They are trying to convince us that the land was actually desolated
for 49/50 years and not for 70 years. But this contradicts the Bible, because
Daniel 9:2 reads:
‘I DaniEl came to understand the number of the years from the words that
Jehovah had given to the Prophet JeremiAh, for there He prophesied that
JeruSalem would lie desolate for seventy years.’
Notice that the word
‘desolate’ here, is translated from the Hebrew word horvot (plural),
which means, ‘in ruins.’
So, JeruSalem was in a total state of ruin for seventy
years.
The precise wording
and meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a bit unclear, and we have
chosen to deviate from the thoughts expressed in other Bibles for the following
reason:
In Greek, the verse reads:
‘oitenes diken tisousin holethron aionion apo prosopou tou kyriou kai
apo tes doxes tes iskous autou,’
or,
‘which/ones justice will/pay ruin
age-long from face of/the Lord and from the
glory of/the strength of/him.’
In the New American
Standard Bible (for example), this verse is rendered as:
‘These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the
presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.’
And this, as you can see, is an obvious mistranslation; for not only does the
word aionion not mean eternal, but being eternally destroyed is
inconsistent with the thought of being sent away from the face of the
Lord and from his glory and strength.
In other words, the sentence as it is
rendered in that Bible just doesn’t make any sense.
What Paul appears to
have meant is that those who are persecuting faithful Christians will suffer
the ruin of being sent away from the face of the Lord and his glory and
strength for a long period of time, not that they would be eternally destroyed.
So, we have rendered this verse as reading:
‘[His] justice will repay them with age-long ruin away from the face of
the Lord and from the glory of his strength.’
For notice that ‘age-long’ is a much more accurate translation of the Greek
word aionion.
Also notice how at 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8,
the proper translation of the Greek word ourano (sky,
not heaven) better indicates when this justice will happen. For there we
read:
‘And it is a righteous thing for God to repay those that are persecuting you by
crushing them, while providing relief to you who are suffering this persecution
(and to us also) when the Lord Jesus is revealed in the sky with his
powerful messengers in a flaming fire.
Then he’ll bring vengeance upon all
those that don’t know God and those that aren’t obeying the good news about our
Lord Jesus.’
As you can see, this ‘crushing’ doesn’t happen immediately (they are not sent to ‘Hell’), but rather, it will happen after the sign of Jesus is seen in the skies, or when he arrives during the ‘last days’ of this wicked world.
In EzekiEl the
Fourth Chapter, the Prophet was told to lie on his left side for 390 days to
show the number of years (a day per year) it would be from the time that the
10-tribe nation of IsraEl had started in rebellion against God until it was to
be destroyed.
Then he was to lie on his right side for 40 more days to signify
how long it would be until JeruSalem would be destroyed by the Babylonians, because of
the people’s rejection of the true God and of His laws.
The mistake that
most people make here is in assuming that the 40 years is added to the 390
years, for a total of 430 years.
However, our Bible-based calculations show
that the 40 years is in fact the last part of the 390-year period.
Then, what did the
final 40 years of this 390-year prophecy signify?
It is thought that it started with the
finding of the scroll of God’s Law during the time of righteous King JosiAh in the eighteenth year of his reign; for this
appears to have been God’s final warning to Judah before JeruSalem’s destruction.
Notice the chronology and the linked scriptures:
Kings of IsraEl:
JeroBoam 22-yrs (1 Kings 14:20)
Nadab 2-yrs (1 Kings 15:25)
BaAsha 24-yrs (1 Kings 15:33)
ElAh 2-yrs (1 Kings 16:8)
Zimri 7 days (1 Kings 16:15)
Tibni (brief period)
Omri 12-yrs (1 Kings 16:23)
Ahab 22-yrs (1 Kings 16:29)
AhaziAh 2-yrs (1 Kings 22:52)
JehoRam 12-yrs (2 Kings 3:1)
Jehu 28-yrs (2 Kings 10:36)
JehoAhaz 17-yrs (2 Kings 13:1)
JehoAsh 16-yrs (2 Kings 13:10)
JeroBoam 41-yrs (2 Kings 14:23)
ZechariAh .5-yrs (2 Kings 15:8)
ShalLum 1 month (2 Kings 15:13)
Menahem 10-yrs (2 Kings 15:17)
PekahJah 2-yrs (2 Kings 15:23)
Pekah 20-yrs (2 Kings 15:27)
HosheA 9-yrs (2 Kings 17:1)
= 242-yrs.
Kings of Judah:
Hoshea starts his reign in Ahaz’s 12th year (2 Kings 17:1) and ruled for 9
years before IsraEl was destroyed in the 6th year of King HezekiAh’s 29-yr
reign, which lasts 23 more years (2 Kings
18:1-12)
ManasSeh 55-yrs (2 Kings 21:1)
Amon 2-yrs (2 Kings 21:19)
JosiAh 31-yrs (2 Kings 22:1)
JehoAhaz 3 months (2 Kings 23:31)
JehoiAkim 11-yrs (2 Kings 23:36)
JehoiAchin 3 months (2 Kings 24:12)
ZedekiAh 11-yrs (2 Kings 24:18)
23+55+2+31+11+1+11= 134-yrs
242+134=376 years total
As you can see, this
doesn’t add up to 390 years (14 years short).
However, understand that the
numbers shown above include whole years, yet the kings actually died somewhere
in the middle of those years.
Also, if you compare the times given for the
reigns of IsraEl’s kings to those of the kings of Judah, you will find some
errors. For when we work the dates back using just the
length of reigns that are given for the kings of Judah, they add up to
about 400 years from the same starting point (10 years more than 390 years).
So it seems as though the only reliable reference is the prophecy that God
gave, which says 390 years (and we suspect that He really knew the
answer).
In Second
Corinthians Chapter Two, we read of how the first recorded case of the official
congregational discipline of a member that was guilty of serious wrongdoing,
worked out.
This had to do with a man in the congregation at Corinth, Greece,
who had married his father’s wife (likely a second wife), likely, after his father’s death.
For according to the old Law, such an action was viewed as showing disrespect to his father.
As the result, Paul told the congregation (at 1
Corinthians 5:11) to judge the matter and to remove
the sinner.
Then in Second
Corinthians, we read a follow-up letter that was likely written just a few
months later, which indicates the positive results of their following Paul’s recommended
action.
Because Paul wrote (at Second Corinthians 2:6, 7):
‘For, the discipline that the majority of you gave this man was
sufficient.
Therefore, kindly forgive him and comfort him now, so that he won’t
somehow be swallowed up by his deep sadness…
Yes, I’m telling you to let him
know that you love him!’
So, notice that:
1. The punishment (gr. epitimia – on/value) that was given (and which was approved by Paul) lasted just a few months.
2. This action apparently wasn’t supported by the whole congregation – ‘the majority (gr. pleionon – more ones) of you reached’ – but no action was recommended against those that didn’t agree with the measures.
3. Paul was especially concerned about the individual and wanted him to be forgiven, comforted, and shown love.
The fact is,
imperfect men tend to be harsh and unloving when dealing with others whom they
consider to have ‘broken the rules.’
However, Paul really believed in the type
of love that he wrote about at 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 (in his previous letter),
so he didn’t recommend any further actions or restrictions.
Nor did he warn
against any expressions of joy when the man was welcomed back into the
congregation, despite the fact that the offense appears to have been
viewed as particularly grievous and notorious.
Also notice that Paul
made no further mention of this matter thereafter.
He simply concludes by
saying (at 2 Corinthians 2:10, 11):
‘And when I forgive someone through you before the Anointed One (if I ever have
anything to forgive), it’s so that none are lost to the Opposer, because
we know how he operates.’
So you can see that Paul’s primary concern in this second letter was not about how to continue the correction and discipline, but with consoling the offender, so he would remain steadfast in the congregation and he wouldn’t be lost to the Opposer.
Throughout the
Christian Era Scriptures (NT) we read of the hope that some had of being
adopted as sons of God and ruling with Jesus.
When does this ‘adopting’
actually happen, what are its results, and how can we know if we’ve been
adopted by God?
Well, notice Paul’s words at Romans 8:15:
‘And you didn’t receive a spirit of bondage to fear again; you received a
spirit of adoption, by which we can call out, Papa! Father!’
From this we can see that such individuals first received God’s Spirit or Breath, and then it ‘adopted’ them as God’s sons.
What we know as a
fact, is that in the days of the Apostles, whenever Christians received God’s
Holy Breath, it was manifested in ways that others could actually see.
And this adoption appears to have imparted the value of a spiritual life
to the individual.
For, notice that Paul also referred to such ones as being a
‘new creation’ at Galatians 6:15, where he wrote:
‘Circumcision isn’t anything, nor is uncircumcision.
Rather, [what matters is
becoming] a new creation (gr. kaine ktesis)!’
Then, after a person
received this adoption, he or she was said to have become a fellow ‘heir’ with
Jesus.
As Romans 8:17 says:
‘And if we’re [His] children, we’re also [His] heirs…
Yes, heirs of God and
heirs with the Anointed One!’
Heirs of what?
You
will find this discussed in the linked document, God’s
Promise of an Inheritance.
Are there any
special requirements for receiving spiritual adoption?
Notice that Paul added at
Romans 8:17:
‘However, we have to suffer together so we can also be glorified together.’
History tells us
that suffering a violent death or being greatly persecuted for their faith was
true of all the Apostles, and many (if not all) of the rest of the adopted sons
from the First Century down to this day.
So we might ask:
Is such violent
physical suffering required for all that have this hope?
Well, consider what
Revelation 6:11 says:
‘Then they were each given a white robe and they were told to take it easy just
a little while longer until the full number of their fellow slaves and brothers
was filled (who were going to be killed, as they were).’
Yet, nobody can say for sure that all who are adopted as His sons must suffer greatly, for this is in the hands of God.
When does this
‘choosing’ happen?
It appears as though it doesn’t necessarily happen at the
time of baptism.
For example;
In the case of the first gentile converts to
Christianity (Cornelius and his family), such selection (if we can assume that
receiving God’s Breath or Spirit was an indication of their being chosen)
happened even before they were baptized!
On the other hand;
On Pentecost of
33-CE, many individuals received God’s Breath long
after they had been baptized.
Notice that Galatians 3:26, 27, says:
‘The fact is, you’re all sons of God because of your faith in the
Anointed Jesus.’
Therefore, it
appears as though ‘becoming one’ with or ‘being in’ Jesus and becoming ‘sons of
God’ occurs whenever God selects them.
However, it is possible that their
actual adoption comes upon the death of their fleshly bodies.
Paul seems to
have indicated this when he wrote at Romans 8:23, 24:
‘Those of us that have received the first fruitage of [God’s] Breath groan
within ourselves as we await the adoption and [payment of] the ransom to
free our bodies.
Yes, this is the hope that’s saving us!’
The Greek word ParaCletos
(pronounced: para-kleh-tose), as found at John 16:7, has been translated many
ways in other Bibles, and we aren’t implying that these other translations are
wrong.
However, the two words that make up this single combined word are para
(next to) and cletos (caller);
So, this combination of words appears to
refer to an entity that stands next to us and calls out to God on our behalf.
An online search for
other meanings of ParaCletos turned up the word Lawyer, which implies
someone that represents us legally.
However, we have chosen to use the friendlier
term Advocate wherever the word Paracletos is found (such as at 1 John 2:1, 2).
Notice how
translating the word ParaCletos as Advocate seems to be supported by
Paul’s words at Romans 8:26, 27, where he wrote:
‘The [Holy] Spirit also helps us with our weaknesses, because we don’t always
know what to pray for.
However, the Spirit is there, groaning the words [that
we] haven’t spoken.
And the One that searches hearts knows the thoughts of the
Spirit;
Because, like a god, he’s an advocate for the holy ones.’
Another view of the
meaning of ParaCletos comes from an Aramaic translator who says that the word
is of Aramaic origin and means Savior, or, Another Savior.
And
we will allow that this quite different translation could be correct, because
we know that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic to his Jewish disciples.
One argument that we
found online presented Jesus as being the ParaCletos, because he was called the
paraclete at 1 John 2:1, 2.
However, the words of Jesus himself at John
16:7 seem to dispel that theory, for he said:
‘If I didn’t go away, the Advocate wouldn’t come to you.
But if I go, I’ll
send him to you.’
In Greek this reads literally:
If/ever for not I/should/go/off the ParaCletos not not would/come toward you.
If/ever but I/should/go I/shall/send him toward you.’
However, if Jesus
was the ParaCletos, he would simply have said, ‘I will come to you.’
Therefore, we must assume that the reference to Jesus being the ParaCletos in
First John was not implying that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, but that this is a
simple reference to the fact that Jesus is also our advocate before God.
Of course, much has
been made of Jesus’ use of the personal pronoun, he and him, when
speaking of the ParaCletos or the Holy Spirit.
This is because some, in an
attempt to tie him (or it) into a triune relationship with God and Jesus, like
to speak of the ParaCletos as a third personality within The God.
And this is why
the use of the word him in these cases is a hotly-debated topic between
Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians.
So, what is the
ParaCletos?
Well, the answer is simply unclear (not enough information in the
Scriptures), so we choose not to reach a conclusion (we like to leave jumping
to conclusions to others).
Could the ParaCletos
be a person?
That is strongly indicated by what Jesus said, as recorded at John
16:13-16.
For there we read:
‘However, when that one (the Spirit of Truth) arrives, he will lead you to all
truth.
He won’t be speaking from himself; he’ll just tell you what he hears,
and he will announce the things that are coming.
That one will glorify me,
because he will receive things from me and announce them to you.’
So, yes! It does
sound like this particular Holy Spirit could be a person.
However, there are
places in the Bible where good qualities (such as Wisdom) are also personified.
Therefore, it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion on whether Jesus was
saying that this Spirit was another powerful individual.
For there are other
indications that it is the power (or Spirit) of Jesus.
Notice for example,
Paul’s words at Romans 8:9, 10, where he wrote:
‘However, if God’s Breath lives in us, we aren’t fleshly but spiritual… and
whoever doesn’t have the Spirit of the Anointed One doesn’t belong to him.
So if the Anointed One is in you, your body is indeed dead through sin, but the
spirit is alive through righteousness.’
It or Him?
It’s important to recognize that the Holy Spirit that was poured out upon
Christians on Pentecost 33-CE was something quite different from the Holy
Spirit that the Apostles already had.
Remember that the scriptures tell us that
Jesus had previously given them Holy Spirit when he sent them out to preach
sometime before his death.
Also remember that the Apostles were able to heal
and to cast out demons by the Spirit!
So, the ParaCletos is clearly not
the same as the Holy Spirit that they had received earlier and which allowed
them to perform great works prior to Pentecost!
Therefore;
Since
Jesus’ Apostles already had God’s Spirit or Breath (as did many ancient
Prophets and leaders), we might assume that this Advocate (ParaCletos), which
arrived on Pentecost of 33-CE, was the Spirit of Jesus,
and that it performed
in even more powerful ways on behalf of early Christians, literally calling
out to God on their behalf and making them one with Jesus.
However;
At Acts
1:4, this Spirit or Breath was said to have come from the Father, which
leaves such a conclusion unclear.
Notice that Jesus
gave a further description of this special Spirit at John 14:16, where he
called it the Spirit of Truth.
And at Acts 1:5, Jesus said that his
disciples would be baptized in it.
So, similar to the visible outpouring
of God’s Spirit (or Breath) on Jesus at his baptism (which appears to be the
point of his anointing and receiving special powers);
The outpouring of
Holy Spirit on Pentecost appears to be the time when the disciples were
anointed and given special powers.
It is also the time when they were born from above
(see John 3:3).
According to the
King James Bible, Psalm 37:29 says:
‘The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.’
And the Jubilee Bible 2000 says:
‘The righteous shall inherit the earth and live upon it for ever.’
Is this what King David actually wrote in his Psalm (sacred hymn)?
No, it
isn’t.
There are really
only two words that imply infinite states (such as ‘forever’) in the Bible;
One
is the Greek word athanasia (undying), which is only found in two
places, 1 Corinthians 15:53,
where it mentions resurrected ones as clothing themselves with immortality,
and at 1 Timothy 6:16, where Paul speaks
of Jesus alone as having it.
The other Greek word is aidios, which is used at Romans 1:20 to describe God’s Power and Might as eternal, and at Jude 6, when speaking of the perpetual state of gloomy darkness to which rebellious angels have been confined.
However, the Greek
word aionos, which is used throughout the Bible in various conjugated
forms and is often translated as eternal and forever, is where we
get the English word eon.
It means an indefinite period, and
there is no exact English word to translate it.
The best equivalents are age
or era.
Where the singular
form (aionos) is used, this appears to mean a period such as a lifetime,
generation, or era.
And where the plural form of the word (aiōnōn) is used, it refers to a longer time…
at least multiple generations.
Also, where the term ages of the ages is
used (such as at Ephesians 3:21), which is
usually said in reference to The God, we would assume that this truly means
forever.
And where the term, ‘ton aiona tou aionos’ (the age of the age) is
used (extensively in the Psalms), it may refer to a coming better age for
mankind.
It is easy to see
why it is so important to translate these words correctly, for in the many
prophecies given to the ancient prophets about cities, peoples, and lands, we often
find that these were to be destroyed for a portion of time, not forever,
as other Bible say.
So when others translate these words wrong and these places
are later rebuilt and/or re-inhabited, the mistranslations make the Bible
appear to be in error.
It is noteworthy
that aionos is the also word that is used in the Greek Septuagint to
translate several Hebrew words that are commonly rendered in modern Bibles as forever.
However, this one word (aionos) and the several Hebrew words have also been
translated into English as everlasting, eternal, system of things, time
indefinite, [end of] the world, long ago, from of old, etc., in other Bibles.
Obviously, something is very wrong here, because these words can’t mean a
period having a definite end in one place and infinity in another.
Take for example,
the unique way that aionos is used in the question that Jesus’ Apostles are
said to have asked him at Matthew 24:3 (NLT):
‘Tell us, when will all this happen?
What sign will signal your return and the
end of the world?’
Notice that aionos
is translated as world here in many Bibles.
However, another Bible (NW)
translates it as system of things.
But if the Apostles had meant either
of these words when they asked him the question, they would likely have used the proper
Greek word, cosmos (world, system of things, or arrangement),
not aionos.
Another good example
of the common mistranslation of ‘aionos’ can be found at Acts 3:21, where other translators have rendered it as,
‘long ago,’ ‘ancient times,’ ‘from the beginning,’ ‘since the world began,’
‘since beginning of the world,’ and ‘since time began.’
If you look at this
application (click on the links above), you will clearly see that aionos cannot
be translated as ‘eternal,’ ‘everlasting,’ or ‘forever’ here.
Therefore, we
have correctly translated it as ‘age’ in this instance, as in, ‘the age
of the Prophets.’
And this is also
true of the Apostles’ use of the word aionos at Matthew 24:3 (if they really asked such question at all).
They weren’t
asking when forever, everlasting, or eternal would come to a
conclusion, nor were they asking when the world or system of things
would end.
Rather, they would have been asking when that particular age,
or period in which they were living, or the age of God’s dealing only
with the Jews was about to end…
Which happened shortly thereafter with the
destruction of JeruSalem and the Temple.
Yet there are
instances when some forms of the word could imply forever, such as when
we find it in the form (aiōnōn).
This is an adjective in the singular case, which, when combined with the Greek
word zoe (in its various forms), is usually translated in other Bibles
as, everlasting life.
But notice that this isn’t a totally-accurate
description.
In the past we had
tried to reconcile the words zoe aiōniōn as meaning, life in the age.
However,
the word age in this instance would not be an adjective.
So, we have
recently chosen (in most cases where we find this word combination) to
translate them more accurately as age-long life, which we will agree
could still mean everlasting life.
However, notice that
the various ways that this word (aionos) has been mistranslated into English
well illustrates the reason why this Bible was created.
As it can clearly be
seen in this case;
Most Bibles have been translated in ways that would promote
existing religious doctrines, not in ways that would accurately reflect the
true meanings of the words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
And when this
happens, it creates a ‘Catch 22’ situation for the religions that use, sponsor,
and promote the use of such Bibles.
For the practice of verifying false
doctrines through dishonest translating tends to permeate false doctrines!
And while we will
admit that our translating of aionos as age doesn’t really create
a great change in how we understand God’s purposes for righteous mankind;
It
does well illustrate how other words have been twisted by Bible translators to
imply things that the ancient Bible texts never implied.
(For more information, see the linked Scriptural Commentary, ‘Does
the Bible Promise Everlasting Life?’)
In Jude verse seven,
we read of how the people of Sodom, GomorRah, and their surrounding cities were
condemned to age-long fire (gr. pyros aioniou).
This term is
usually translated in other Bibles as eternal fire, and it has long been
understood to be speaking of Hell Fire.
Is eternal burning in the fires of Hell the fate of such bad people?
The problem with the
common teaching that people’s souls don’t die but are tortured eternally for
their sins, is that such ones must first have something that is ‘immortal’ and
doesn’t die.
However, the Greek word for immortality (athanasia
or undying) only appears in the Bible three times.
If you read these
scriptures, you will find that 1 Timothy 6:16,
for example, speaks of Jesus as being immortal, and 1 Corinthians 15:53, 54 tells us that
God offers immortality as a reward to the faithful.
So, there is no scripture in the Bible that ever speaks of sinners as being immortal or of having ‘immortal souls.’
Then, what is the fate of unrepentant sinners?
For the answer to this question, we must return to the words of God when He warned the first human (Adam) of what would happen should he choose to disobey.
At Genesis 2:17 He said:
‘You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad.
Because, on
whatever day you eat from it, your life will end and you will die.’
Therefore, notice that no ‘immortal soul’ or ‘Hell Fire’ was implied there.
However, did God later create a Hell Fire and give men immortal souls so He could thereafter torture them eternally for their sins?
Notice God’s warning at Romans 6:23,
where we read:
‘For the wage of sin is death;
But God’s gift is age-long life through
the Anointed Jesus, our Lord.’
As you can see;
God’s gift to the righteous is age-long life (gr. zoe aionos).
But the
wage of unrepented sins is simply death (gr. thanatos).
Then, what did Jude
mean when he spoke of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah as being condemned to
‘age-long fire?’
The answer to this is found at Revelation 20:14, where we
read:
‘The lake of fire symbolizes the second death.’
So it appears as though death without the hope of a resurrection may have been the fate of those gross sinners that were killed by God when He rained fire down on them from the sky.
Yet, notice that the
actual wording could mean that they will be gone for just a very long time.
This is indicated by what Jesus told his Apostles as recorded at Matthew 10:14,
15:
‘Wherever people don’t take you in or listen to your words; on leaving that
house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
I tell you the truth;
On
the Judgment Day, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and GomorRah
than for that city.’
So he seems to have
been saying that those people may actually be resurrected during the Judgment
Day.
(For more
information, see the linked document, ‘Is There a Burning
Hell?’)
‘Amen’ is a Hebrew
word that was never really translated into English, it was just Anglicized.
In
Greek, it is pronounced, ah-main.
The reason why it was never translated is that
through the centuries, scholars have been afraid to change this supposed
‘magical’ word that ensures God will listen to our prayers.
And although there
is no record in the Bible of anyone ending prayers with amen, it was likely
said.
For the fact that others that heard a congregational prayer said amen at
the end to show that they agreed, is indicated by Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 14:16.
However, notice that
all other instances of the use of the word amen in the Bible (especially
by Paul) were to affirm that what he was writing was true.
And that’s the
literal meaning and best translation of the word, amen… ‘May it be so.’
Then, should Christians end their prayers with the word amen, or with the phrase, may it be so?
It really makes no difference. In fact, neither really has to be
said for God to hear the prayer or for Him to understand that it is being
concluded (God is smarter than that).
However, an audible ‘amen’ (or, ‘may it
be so’) at the conclusion of a public prayer indicates that the prayer has
ended and that we agree with the words that were spoken (if we do in fact agree).
You will notice
several places in this Bible where we have left the word amen unchanged.
For example; at Revelation 3:14, where Jesus was referred to symbolically as
‘the Amen,’ or as, ‘the one that affirms their right to be.’
Many religious
teachers have tried to draw a line between Jehovah, ‘the vengeful, warring God
of the Old Testament,’ and the ‘God of the New Testament,’ as represented by
the loving, kind actions and words of Jesus.
However, if you pay close
attention to the details, you’ll find the same kind, loving God in both
portions of the Bible.
And this can be seen in His requirement for animal
sacrifices.
The first mention in
the Bible of an animal being sacrificed to God, is the one that was offered by
Adam’s second son Abel.
And though both he and his brother Cain offered
sacrifices, Abel’s was the one that God found to be satisfactory.
Why?
Well, it
has been argued that Abel’s sacrifice was more pleasing to God because he
offered a living thing, which better represented the sacrifice that God Himself
would make when He offered His son’s life on behalf of mankind. And this may be
true.
However, we are told at Hebrews 11:4:
‘It was because of his faith that Abel offered a greater sacrifice to
God than did Cain.’
So this seems to be saying that God preferred the faith that Cain showed in making the
offering, rather than his having some miraculous foreknowledge of future events.
Of special interest though,
are God’s later instructions about how animal sacrifices were to be
presented to Him.
For example;
To show that they were being offered to God, some sort
of Altar had to be constructed to make the offering.
What kind?
Notice that, when He was laying out the Old
Law, God said (at Exodus 20:24):
‘You must make an Altar to Me from the dirt.’
So, nothing fancy or expensive was required.
Then sometime later, He said (at
Exodus 20:25):
‘Now, if you build a stone Altar to Me, don’t use cut stones.’
And at Exodus 20:26 we read:
‘Nor should you build any steps to My Altar.’
So, the Altar wasn’t to be too high, and simple rock (or dirt) construction was
all that was required.
Of course, shortly
thereafter, God told Moses to build the Sacred Tent, and it was also to have an
Altar in front of it.
But though the Tent was to be beautiful in all its gold and silver
ornamentation and utensils, the Altar was to be short, quite small, and made of
wood and brass… because it was to be portable.
So, the fires were to be kept
small, and only animal fat and small organs (plus bread, wine, and tiny amounts
of animal blood) were to be offered there.
Then, only ‘clean’ or ‘perfect’ animals were to be brought there, and the edible flesh was to be roasted or boiled nearby.
‘Clean,’ of course, meant that it was to be the type
of animal that men had previously considered to be clean enough to serve as food until that time, such as a
calf, sheep, pigeon, or dove (see Genesis 7:2).
And what was to happen to the meat?
It was to be eaten by those who offered
it and by the priests.
In other words;
This was just a community barbecue,
to be enjoyed along with one’s neighbors and with God.
And what portion was
to be offered to God on the Altar?
The less edible fat, liver, kidneys, etc., which was
just to be burned as a form of incense or pleasing odor to Him…
No angry, vengeful, or
hungry God here.
Also notice that
offering animal sacrifices to Him doesn’t seem to have been God’s idea;
Rather,
it appears as though He allowed this simply because men thought it was the
right thing to do.
For we read at Psalm 40:6 (a prophecy about Jesus):
‘Sacrifices and offerings, You didn’t want,
Nor did You seek whole burnt offerings
Or sacrifices for [the covering of] sins;
Yet, You prepared a body for me.’
You can see what appears to be God’s
negative opinion about animal sacrifices at Jeremiah
7:21-23, where He seems to indicate that offering sacrifices was something
He allowed because that’s what the people thought they should be doing…
It
was their idea of how they should show honor to Him, when all He really wanted
for them was to pay attention to His words and to do as He said.
Yes, it is true that He did
set out the requirements for offering the sacrifices in the Old Law, but when all the words
are considered, it appears as though this was meant to show the people how it
was to be done if this is the way they chose to honor Him.
Understand that the
prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is clearly talking about the period between when the
Temple in JeruSalem would be rebuilt and when the Messiah (Jesus) would be
anointed by God (after which the city would be destroyed).
Notice how we have
rendered verse 24:
‘Seventy periods of
seven
Have been set for you and your people
And upon the Holy City on Zion,
To bring an end to its sins,
To set a seal on its sins,
To wipe away all their lawless deeds,
And to atone for their errors;
To restore righteous ways through the ages,
To put a seal on the prophecies and visions,
And to anoint the holiest of the holy.’
In Greek, the portion of the above verse that we’ve highlighted in bold reads, ‘kai tou chrisai agion agiOn,’ or, ‘and of anointing the/holy holiest.’
So, what's the problem?
Well, if you check
to see how this verse is rendered in other Bibles, you will see that;
Because the
term ‘the holy of the holiest’ was used here,
these words have commonly been translated as ‘the Most Holy Place,’
indicating the sacred room in God’s Temple that housed the ‘Ark of the Covenant,’
or as we have worded it, ‘The Chest of Proofs.’
But was this prophecy really speaking about anointing a ROOM?
Understand that we are not being dogmatic on this, however;
It appears as though the verse is referring to Jesus as being that ‘holiest of
the holy.’
For you can see from the next verse (25) that the prophecy is
talking about his arrival.
Notice that it says there:
‘So know this and
now understand:
From the delivery of the word and response
For JeruSalem to be rebuilt,
Until the Anointed (gr. chrisai) Leader arrives,
Will be seven periods of seven,
Plus sixty-two periods of seven.’
So while it is true that the ancient ‘Temple’ along
with its ‘Most Holy’ had to be regularly ‘cleansed’ by the Priests by being
sprinkled with water and blood;
The concept of ‘anointing’ the Most Holy
compartment makes no sense at all.
But on the other hand;
Jesus was
in fact anointed (making him ‘the Christ’) when he came out of the water after
being baptized by John.
For that’s when the Breath (Spirit) of God descended
upon him in the form of a dove and God proclaimed him His Beloved Son.
So from the context, we have concluded that verse 24 was likely foretelling this anointing of Jesus, making him ‘the holiest of the holy,’ because his ‘arrival’ was signaled when he was anointed by God.
Notice that in this
Bible translation, 2 Corinthians 1:21 (for example) says:
‘And indeed, the One that confirmed us among you into the Anointed One,
and the One that anointed us, is God.’
Yet, notice that in the Authorized King James Version this verse reads:
‘Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed
us, is God.’
In Greek, you’ll see that this verse reads:
‘Ho de bebaion hemas syn hymin eis christon kai chrisas hemas
Theos,’
or,
‘The of stabilizing us with you into anointed and anointing us
God.’
First, notice that christon
(anointed) and chrisas (anointing) are both just conjugations of the
same word.
And we have in fact translated christon as Anointed One,
rather than Christ.
So, why didn’t we
just go ahead and render the word (Anointed) as Christ, as countless
other translators have done?
For two reasons:
1.
Because
the term ‘Christ’ has almost totally lost its meaning to many Bible readers
today, since most have come to believe that this was Jesus’ last name.
It wasn’t.
2.
Because
‘Christ’ is a word that was made up by early Bible translators (it’s an
Anglicization of the Greek word christos or christon) and they only use it in that
form when the translators assumed that the Bible was speaking of Jesus.
In
other places it is correctly translated into the English word, anointed.
Understand that all the Kings, Priests, and Prophets
that God chose were anointed with oil to show that He had chosen them
(olive oil was poured over their heads).
Kings Saul, David, and Solomon (for example) were both anointed with oil by God’s Priests,
because God chose them to their positions and He also poured His Spirit upon them.
So understand that the word christos means anointed.
But if you prefer the word Christ;
Then Saul, David, and Solomon were Christs, for you can’t have it both ways.
As
an example;
Look at the words that David spoke about Saul, as found at 1 Samuel
24:6 (LXX):
‘Kai eipin David pros tous andras autou:
Medamos moi para kiriou ei poieso
to hrema touto to kyrio mou to christo kyriou epenegkai cheira mou ep
auton hoti christos kyriou estin autos,’
Or,
‘Said David to the men of/his:
By/no/means of/me from the/Lord if
I/should/do this thing to my/Lord to/the Christ (Anointed) of/the/Lord
to/raise my/hand against him;
For, the/Christ (Anointed) of/the/Lord
this is.’
Does it say the same thing in the Hebrew text?
Yes!
Just notice that different languages use different words, and the Hebrew word
for anointed is mə-šî-aḥ (Messiah in English).
So the verse reads in Hebrew:
‘Way-yō-mer la-’ă-nā-šāw:
Hā-lî-lāh lî Yah-weh ’im-’e-‘ĕ-śeh ’eṯ-had-dā-ḇār
haz-zeh la-ḏō-nî lim-šî-aḥ Yah-weh, liš-lō-aḥ yā-ḏî bōw; kî-mə-šî-aḥ
Yah-weh hū.’
Or,
‘And/he/said to/his/men:
Forbid I Jehovah that should/do [such] thing [as]/this to/my Lord
anointed of/Jehovah to/stretch/out my/hand against/him, seeing
the/anointed/of Jehovah he/is?’
So as you can see;
If Christos
should be translated as Christ, then unrighteous King Saul was also a
Messiah or Christ.
However, notice that almost all Bibles translate
christos or mə-šî-aḥ as anointed
in this case (and this is just one of many such instances where these words are
translated that way in the OT).
Also notice that
Jesus was the only person that was referred to as the christon or Christ
in the Gospels.
Why?
Well until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out
on Jesus’ disciples, he was the only one there that had been ‘anointed’ by God’s Holy
Breath, which happened to him after his baptism.
Therefore, the rest were only
anointed (or became christs) when they received the Holy Breath (or Spirit)
some fifty days after Jesus’ death.
Yet even then, they didn’t presumptuously call themselves
‘the anointed,’ because that title belonged to Jesus.
That Jesus didn’t really become the Christon
(Christ, Anointed, or Chosen One) until he was anointed with Holy Breath (when
the ‘dove’ came down on him) can be proven by what Peter said concerning him at
Acts 10:38:
‘For thereafter, God anointed Jesus
from Nazareth with Holy Breath and power,
and he traveled throughout the land doing good things and healing all
those that were oppressed by the Slanderer.’
So if you understand
what this scripture is in fact saying, you will also understand why the word Christ
(Anointed) was applied to Jesus;
It means that he was the one that God chose to
be the true king over His people.
But then;
You can also
understand why Paul told the Christians in Corinth that they too would be
anointed (or become ‘christs’) at 2 Corinthians 1:21.
For when they received
God’s Holy Breath, it showed that they too had been selected to be ‘kings on
the earth’ (see Revelation 5:10).
Notice how our
rendering of the Greek words christos and christon
consistently as ‘anointed’ rather than ‘Christ’ provides you with a
better understanding of other scriptures.
For example;
At Matthew 24:24, you
can see that though most other Bibles say that Jesus foretold the coming of false
Christs and false prophets in the last days, what he actually said was that
false anointed and false prophets (gr. pseudo christon kai pseudo
prophetai) will arise.
So Jesus wasn’t necessarily saying that people would
come claiming to be him (though many have), but rather, that people
would come falsely claiming to be God’s anointed and His prophets…
though they truly will not be.
(For more information, see the linked document, False Anointed and False Prophets).
Another example of
the poor use of the title Christ (implying Jesus) by Bible translators can be
found at 1 Peter 1:10, 11, which reads in this Bible:
‘When it comes to salvation, the Prophets looked and searched for this
loving-care that’s being shown to you.
They tried, through the spirit of
anointing that was in them to determine the exact time and circumstances of
the sufferings of the Anointed One and of his being glorified, which they knew
about even back then.’
Of course, other
Bibles say it was the Spirit of Christ that was in the ancient Prophets.
But remember that (as we pointed out above) Jesus didn’t really become the
Christ or the Anointed until after his baptism.
So what Peter
was really saying is that:
It was through the spirit of their anointing
(for they were all anointed to their positions) that
the ancient faithful Prophets, Priests, and kings wished to understand
when their prophecies concerning the suffering and death of Jesus were to be
fulfilled.
We can say this because;
If you check the wording
of that verse in Greek, you’ll see that there is no ‘the’ (gr. ‘ho’) preceding the first christou
(anointed), which would be required if Peter was saying that the Spirit of the
Christ (or the Anointed One) was in them.
At Exodus 29:29, we
find that Aaron and his sons were to be ‘anointed’ as Priests of God and that
this action would make them ‘holy’ or clean.
They were thereafter ‘anointed’ by having holy oil
poured over their heads, which was a sign to all the onlookers that they had been chosen
to this office by God Himself.
Also note that in Leviticus, when we read of the ‘Anointed’ Priest,
the reference seems to indicate just one of the Priests that had been chosen for
the special office of what later became known as the High Priest.
However, all the sons of Levi were anointed to be priests (small p) and all
the sons of Aaron were anointed to be Priests (large P).
For more information, see, ‘Priests
that May Have Been Types of Heavenly Life,’ in the linked document,
‘God’s Promise of an Inheritance.’
Understand that the word in the Greek (Septuagint) text that
we have translated as anointed, is chriseis.
And note that this word can also
properly be translated as Christ (it’s just a conjugation of Christos),
since christ and anointed both come from the same root… which is
Greek for olive oil, because olive oil is was what was use to anoint them.
So, Jesus
wasn’t the first or the only person to be correctly referred to as a ‘christ’ in the Bible.
Was the anointing oil just pure olive oil?
No, fragrant herbs were usually (but not always) added to the oil to make
it special and to give it a pleasing odor.
The exact formula for the anointing
oil is found at Exodus 30:34, where it tells us that it was to be made from
‘sixteen pounds of choice myrrh flowers, eight pounds of sweet-smelling
cinnamon, eight pounds of sweet-smelling calamus, sixteen pounds of cassia, and
a gallon of olive oil.’
This physical anointing with oil also appears to have pictured such ones receiving God’s Holy Breath, which made them ‘holy.’
Notice that this was what happened to Jesus;
For
he was anointed with God’s Holy Breath immediately after his baptism,
which was a sign that he had been chosen as God’s High Priest and the king of His Kingdom.
Therefore, we must assume that the ‘anointing’ of the ancient priests and kings really pictured what would eventually happen to Jesus.
Who are the
Antichrists?
As John said (at 1 John 2:22):
‘Yes, this is the Antichrist:
They are those who deny both the Father and the
Son!’
Why did John write
this?
Well, by the end of the First Century CE, there were some people in the
Christian congregations (probably traditionalist Jews) that were apparently
denying that Jesus was the Son of God.
And John went on to say (at 1 John
2:23):
‘Whoever denies the Son [also denies] the Father.’
So it was these people (those who had denied the Son) that John was calling the ‘Antichrists.’
Why did he use that
term?
Well, for a ‘Christian’ to deny Jesus amounted to an unforgivable sin
against God’s Holy Breath, because it was God’s Holy Breath that had testified
to who Jesus was.
So, this was a very serious matter.
In fact, it was so
serious that John wrote to Christians and told them not to even talk to such
people – to treat them as though they were dead – because what they were saying
condemned them.
Though popular
modern tradition has it that the Antichrist is a single person, group, or entity
that will only show up in the last days;
Notice that this idea is proven false
by the words of 1 John 2:18, 19, which read:
‘Young children;
It is the last hour.
And as you’ve heard, the Antichrist is
coming, for there are already many Antichrists… and that’s how we know
it’s the last hour.
They left us because they weren’t like us;
For if they had
been like us, they would still be with us, and this is what proves that they
aren’t like us.’
Notice that John
again identified such ones in the same way at 2 John 1:7, where he wrote:
‘Many have strayed [back] into the world and won’t admit that Jesus the
Anointed One came in the flesh.
And these that have strayed are the
Antichrists.’
So, popular beliefs about the coming of some future evil Antichrist reflect a lack of Bible reading and are best relegated to the realm of science-fiction movies.
The Greek word apostasis
(in its various conjugated forms) is used several times in the Ancient
Scriptures of IsraEl (OT).
We find it used at 2 Chronicles 28:19, for example, where
we’ve rendered it as ‘turned away,’ because that’s what the term really means,
since it refers to a turning away from a righteous God-fearing way of life.
For
the Greek word (which we pronounce as apostasy in English) literally
means, ‘turn away from (apo)’ a ‘standing or state (stasis).’
So as you can see;
The Bible term ‘apostasy’
doesn’t really refer to some disagreement over doctrine, as the word is misapplied by
some modern religious groups.
Rather, it refers to a person’s turning from a Christian way (or ‘state’)
of life.
Notice that almost all Bible
references to apostasy are speaking of a turning away from the way of life as an IsraElite,
as was outlined in the Old Law.
You will find that there are only two places
where this term (apostasy) is used in the Christian Era Scriptures (NT)
to indicate that someone may have made or promoted such a change in lifestyles…
at Acts 21:21 and
at 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
At Acts 21:21, we
read (concerning the Apostle Paul):
‘They have heard the rumor that you’ve been teaching Judeans that live among the
nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their
children or to follow the traditions.’
So, here you can see that what was
being called an apostasy by the Christian brothers in JeruSalem was Paul’s
teaching both Jews and gentiles that no one had to follow the
traditional Jewish way of life as outlined by Moses in the Old Law… which
was true!
Nevertheless, Paul still submitted to the wishes of these Jewish elders and underwent
a needless ceremonial cleansing at the Temple, which led to his arrest and eventual
death as a martyr in Rome.
Notice that Paul
wasn’t accused of being an apostate for teaching a wrong doctrine.
Rather, they were accusing him of teaching
a ‘turning from’ or an ‘apostasy from’ the Law of Moses.
Therefore,
his teachings weren’t what they were calling ‘apostate.’
Rather, it was the act of ‘turning
from’ the Law of Moses that they were calling ‘an apostasy.’
So a correct modern use of the word ‘apostasy’ would refer to a person turning from a moral Christian way of life, not to some disagreement over the meaning of a Bible verse.
Actually, the proper
word to use when speaking of a person that is teaching something that deviates
from established doctrine is heretic.
And notice that this is the charge that the Catholic Church used extensively
when they were accusing Protestants and others during their ‘Inquisition’ of
the 1400s through the 1700s.
They didn’t accuse anyone of apostasy – turning
from a Christian way of life – but of heresy – disagreeing with their
established doctrines.
So at least the ancient ‘Church’ understood the proper
differences in the meanings of the words.
However, there was at
least one instance where Paul himself seemed to accuse and impose sanctions on
certain Christians for heresy.
We find this account at 2 Timothy 2:17, 18,
where he wrote:
‘That was the problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus;
They got away from the truth
and started teaching that the resurrection has already happened, which
misdirected the faith of some.’
So, deviating from
teaching the truth of the Bible was in fact a serious matter among
First-Century Christians.
However, in view of what Jesus said at Matthew 5:22 and what was said about Jesus at Jude 9; calling anyone an ‘apostate’ or ‘heretic’
(especially when there might be some question as to who is right) would be a
very serious sin in the eyes of God.
Certainly, in view of what is written at Acts 17:11;
Christians should always be allowed to question the accuracy of religious teachings.
The only other
places in the Christian-Era Scriptures (NT) where the Greek word for apostasy
is found, is where a ‘certificate of dismissal’ (divorce certificate) is
mentioned (see Mark 10:4, for example).
The Greek
words that are used there are biblion apostasiu, which literally mean,
‘scroll of apostasy (sending away or rejection).’
What is an ark?
Surely
everyone has heard of Noah’s ark, haven’t they?
But what is an ark?
Ark is an
ancient English word, the meaning of which has mostly been lost in history.
However, it is often used in other Bibles to translate the Greek word kiboton
(kee/boat/on).
And because most people don’t understand the meaning of the
English word, they usually don’t understand what it’s talking about.
As the
result, any concept that they might have of what an ark looked like usually
comes from pictures in children’s storybooks, which show a large boat with all
sorts of animals looking out the windows.
An ark is simply a
box or chest.
If you carefully examine the description of the measurements that
God gave to Noah, you’ll see that He told Noah to build a three-story wooden
box that was about ‘five-hundred feet long, eighty feet wide, and fifty feet
tall.’
It was rectangular (not boat shaped), it had a roof, at least one
window, and a door.
It didn’t have to be a ‘boat’ that could navigate, because
all it had to do was float.
Nor did the animals look out the window(s); it
didn’t have a lot of windows or an open top deck, and the animals were kept in
stalls.
We also find the
word kiboton used to describe the sacred box known as ‘the Ark of the
Covenant’ (gr. kiboton marturion or, Chest of Testimony).
However, we have more accurately this word ‘Chest of Proofs,’ since that sacred Chest originally held the
proofs of God’s miracles, such as the manna, the flowering rod of Aaron, and
the tablets of the Ten Commandments.
The name that is
given for the king that is mentioned in the Septuagint version of the book of
Esther is ArtaXerxes, who was probably ArtaXerxes I,
king of Persia.
However, notice that this isn’t the same name that the
Septuagint accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah gave for the person that is thought to be
the same king, for though the Masoretic texts of those books identify him as
ArtaXerxes, he was called ArthaSastha in the Greek texts.
So, why is there a
difference in the spelling if all three books are speaking of the same person?
Well, if all three accounts are in fact speaking of the same ArtaXerxes I (and
we suspect that they are), this may simply have been caused by the fact that
one or two among the seventy translators of the Septuagint used a local Jewish
spelling of the name, and another who translated Esther preferred the Greek
spelling.
In Persian, the name
of this rebellious queen is VashTi, but the Greek pronunciation is Astin (see
the Wikipedia reference, ‘Vashti’).
Although some sources claim that she was the daughter of the defeated
Babylonian King BelShazzar,
the hundred and forty years or more since his death makes that relationship
unlikely.
However, she could have been a descendant (a granddaughter) of
BelShazzar.
Throughout the
Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT) you will read of Gods, people, and places
with names that start with BaAl, BeEl, and Bel.
These terms mean the Lord,
the Master, or the Owner, and they refer to various gods of
nations, not necessarily to a particular god.
Rather, this word was just a
title for a God, and the God’s name (or the place that he/it represented)
follows the title, such as BeEl Phegor (as found at Numbers 25:3).
And where
people just called their god BaAl (or BeEl), they were referring to the
lord or god of a particular city or land.
Also, where a person’s
name includes one of these terms (such as, BelShazzar), it usually means
that the person was named after a local god (in this case, Shazzar).
Of course, having
the title BaAl or BeEl in a name doesn’t necessarily imply that a person is a
worshiper of a pagan god, for several faithful worshipers of Jehovah also had
that title as part of their names.
For example, the faithful Judge Gideon came
to be known as JeroBaAl (meaning ‘May BaAl Defend Himself’), because of
his action in cutting down an altar to BaAl.
Also, one of King Saul’s grandsons
(through faithful JoNathan) was named MeriBaAl (meaning ‘Opposer of
BaAl’), one of King David’s faithful warriors was named BaAlJah (meaning
‘Lord Jehovah’), and David named one of his sons BaAlJada (meaning ‘Lord
Knows’).
By the way, BaAl is
pronounced Bah-ahl and BeEl is pronounced Beh-el, not Bayel or Beel.
So you will
usually find them spelled as BaAl or BeEl herein to remind you of the proper
pronunciation.
The reason why it is in two syllables is that it is a
combination of two words, ‘The Lord.’
Also notice that the difference in the
vowels is probably due to variations in the local pronunciation, or it could
have been a spelling choice of later Hebrew translators, since there were no
vowels specified in the original writings.
In places where we
find the letters ‘El’ at the beginning of a name or place; this is usually just
a shortened version of the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning God.
So whereas
many Bibles show the Greek word ‘Baithelbereth’ (as found at Judges 9:46)
as ‘Bethel Bereth,’ we have translated it as ‘the House of God Bereth.’
For
‘Beth (or Baith)’ means ‘the house (or temple) of,’ ‘El’ means ‘God,’ and
‘Bereth’ is that God’s name.
The ‘whore’ that is
identified in Revelation the Eighteenth Chapter (the Great Babylon) has been
identified by some as a composite of all religions that have shared in having a
‘throne over the kings of the earth.’
And this could be true, for what other
group has wielded such an influence over the governments through the ages as
this one is identified as doing in the Revelation?
However, though we
once felt quite sure that the above conclusion was true;
In the process of
translating the words of the Hebrew Prophets and reading the things that
ancient Babylon did to apostate Judah and JeruSalem, we have come across enough
questionable details to cause us to be less sure of this conclusion.
What are these
‘questionable details?’
Well, the Bible shows us that God sent the Kingdom of
Babylon against the Jews because they had been unfaithful.
So, ‘the Great
Babylon’ (as it was referred to by the king of Babylon at Daniel 4:30) was a
worldly army that was sent against something that had become unfaithful to ‘The
God.’
And we have wondered whether unfaithful JeruSalem and Judah don’t in fact
represent what we thought The Great Babylon represented (unfaithful Judaism and
Christianity).
Understand that this is just an open question.
Also note that at
Jeremiah 51:45, we find almost the same words as are found in the Revelation.
For there we read:
‘So, get out of her midst, O my people…
Let each man save his own life
From the anger and rage of Jehovah.’
And if you read the
context, you will see that this was a warning to the Jews get out of Babylon
after its empire was destroyed.
So this seems to be speaking of a political,
not a religious organization.
However, notice that
the ‘whore’ of Revelation was guilty of doing what James mentioned as being
wrong for Christians at James 4:4, where he wrote:
‘Adulteresses, don’t you know that if you’re a friend of the world,
you’re an enemy of God? So, whoever wants to be a friend of the world is
putting himself down as God’s enemy.’
Therefore, we will
allow that the Great Babylon could still represent apostate Christianity, or it
could include Judaism and Islam, or perhaps even all religions.
For notice that
the description by James labels ‘Christians’ as immoral adulteresses when they
get too bound up in secular affairs and politics, putting such things over the
love of brothers, neighbors, and God.
And this lines up with the description of
‘the Great Babylon’ in Revelation.
Of course, the
people of ancient JeruSalem (which was destroyed by the Great Babylon) were
also described as doing such things.
For if you read Ezekiel,
Chapter twenty-three, you will see how God likened JeruSalem to a woman
that had been promised to Him, but became a whore through her unfaithfulness…
Which is what much of modern Christendom appears to have done today.
Also, when Jesus was
on trial before Pontius Pilate, the Jewish religious leaders sealed their position
as such when they proclaimed:
‘We have no king but Caesar.’
One final point:
We
know that in the past, some have identified The Great Babylon as being the
Catholic Church (see the book, ‘The Two Babylons’ by
Alexander Hyslop).
And though there is no single religion that we can point to
as standing alone in its involvement in corruption and political entanglements
(since almost all are guilty of this today), notice that at Revelation 17:9, the ‘whore’ is described as
sitting atop seven mountains or hills, and this does closely resemble the
fabled terrain of Rome.
The most common unit for measuring length, height,
and depth in the Bible is a cubit, which is described at Ezekiel 40:5 as being
‘a forearm and a palm.’
And of course, these lengths vary
depending on the size of the person.
But a cubit is roughly about
eighteen inches.
However, to give you
a better idea of the size and proportions of things in the Bible, we have
converted the units of measure to more familiar terms, such as feet and inches.
And because they aren’t exact measurements, we have roughly averaged the sizes
or lengths.
Also, some units of measure such as a cor (about 32 bushels), hin,
or bath (about 6 gallons), have been roughly estimated.
In addition, we have
dropped the obscure names of coins, since most readers have no idea of their
modern value (which continues to grow).
Rather, we have simply inserted the types
of coins that they are (whether gold, silver, or copper), and sometimes the
size of the coin, to provide you some frame of reference.
This is a tough one,
and we won’t say that our position on the translation of this word can’t be
changed.
The Greek word that we are struggling with is eulogetos, which
is usually translated as ‘blessed’ or ‘blessing.’
Notice that the first part of
the word eu, is Greek for good.
And the last part of the word, logetos
means words (or expressions).
So a literal translation of
eulogetos is good words.
And our question is:
Is this all that a
blessing amounts to?
Yet you might
wonder:
Why are we questioning the traditional translating of eulogetos
as bless, blest, and blessing as it appears in other Bibles?
Because we have
found too many errors in commonly-accepted renderings of many Greek words.
And
here, for example, if eulogetos should be properly translated as blessing
each time (which carries the nuance, ‘causing good things to happen’), then how
can humans ‘bless God?’
So since all that we can do is praise God, we
have concluded that ‘praise’ is a better translation of eulogetos in many
instances.
Also notice that
eulogetos is where we derive the English word eulogy (the kind words
that are said of the deceased at a funeral).
In this case, we couldn’t say that
a eulogy is said as a blessing, because it’s a bit late for that.
So
really, all we can do is speak in praise of the deceased individual.
Yet, despite all of these arguments, there are definitely places in the Bible
where eulogetos is best translated as bless or blessing, because it best
fits the context.
Notice that this
isn’t the same Greek word that we have rendered as blest in other
portions of this translation (for an example, see Matthew 5:5).
The word in
question there is makarios, which is rendered as blessed and as happy
in other Bibles.
However, if you read the following Note, you will see why we
have chosen the word blest as the better translation of that Greek word.
There is quite a debate as to whether the word makarios, which is found throughout the Greek text of the Bible, should be translated as blessed or happy.
Notice that we have chosen to translate it as blest in every case here, which is an older spelling of the word blessed, to get rid of the affected pronunciation that was likely introduced by early preachers (bles-sed).
Why have we settled on blest rather than happy?
Well, according to Zodhiates’
Complete Word Study Dictionary, the word should never have been translated as happy,
as is done in some other Bibles, because happy is derived from the words happen,
happening, or happenstance (luck).
The reasoning there (with which
we agree) is that when someone receives a reward from God, this is a blessing.
However, happiness can come from any source of good luck or fortune.
So understand that in his Sermon on the Mount (as recorded in Matthew Chapters 5 through 7),
Jesus wasn’t telling his listeners about things that would simply make them happier.
Rather, he was speaking of the blessings they would receive if they became his followers.
For more information on this, see the linked Note, ‘Poor in Spirit.’
It is very difficult
to translate Colossians 2:9, 10 into English, and many different conclusions
have been reached about what Paul was writing here.
In Greek it reads:
‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως και εστε εν αυτω
πεπληρωμενοι ος εστιν η κεφαλη πασης αρχης και εξουσιας,’
or,
‘because in him is/dwelling/down all the fullness of/the divinity
bodily and you/are in him having/filled who is the head of/all
government and authority.’
Notice that the King James Bible renders these verses as:
‘For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye
are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.’
GOD’S WORD Translation says:
‘All of God lives in Christ’s body, and God has made you complete in Christ.
Christ is in charge of every ruler and authority.’
The International Standard Version says:
‘Because, all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form. And you have
been filled by him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.’
The New World Translation reads:
‘because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality
dwells bodily. And so you are possessed of a fullness by means of
him, who is the head of all government and authority.’
We have rendered these verses as:
‘For in him lives all the fullness of the divine body…
And you’re also part
of the fullness of this one who is the head over all governments and powers
… ’
As you can see, the
wording of different Bible translations is quite varied, and their choice of
words appears to depend on whether the translators believe in the concept of a Holy Trinity.
So as the result, the translating is
usually slanted to support a religious belief, rather than what was actually
written by Paul.
What did Paul
actually mean?
Although we have concluded through independent research that the
Trinity concept is poorly supported (see the linked document, ‘Who Was Jesus?‘), we have no one’s doctrines to promote.
So hopefully, we can be a bit more objective.
As you can see;
Whatever the fullness of the divine body may be, it is something that is shared
in by the Christian congregation.
So the wording of Colossians 2:9, 10 doesn’t
appear to support the Trinitarian Godhead concept (no Holy Spirit), or the idea
that God lives in Jesus’ body, since many share in the fullness of that
body, as the Greek text clearly shows.
Rather, the wording seems to closely
reflect the words of John as found at John 14:20, which reads:
‘εν εκεινη τη ημερα υμεις γνωσεσθε οτι εγω εν τω πατρι μου και υ μεις εν εμοι
καγω εν υμιν,’
or,
‘In that the day you will/know that I in (εν) the Father of/me, and you in (εν) me,
and I in (εν) you.’
So here (as John wrote), Jesus was speaking of a special relationship between God, himself, and the
congregation.
And notice that he used the Greek word εν (English: in) to reflect their closeness or unity.
And from this description that was
given by Jesus himself, we must conclude that this sharing of the divine
body refers to a oneness or unity between Jesus, God, and the congregation…
which will lead to all in the Congregation having a headship over
governments and powers.
Notice how this
conclusion is supported by the words of Colossians 3:1-4, which read:
‘So if you’ve been raised with the Anointed One, search for the things that
are above… at the right hand of God where the Anointed One is sitting.
Also,
think about the things that are above (not on the earth), because you died and your
life has been hidden away in the Anointed One and in God.
Then when the Anointed One (who is our life) shows himself, you will also be seen with
him in glory.’
At Jude 1:14, 15, Jesus’ half-brother wrote this:
‘The seventh man from Adam, Enoch, prophesied about them when he said,
[Look!]
Jehovah came with His holy tens of millions to condemn them all and to give all
the godless what they deserve for the godless things they’re doing in their
worldly ways, and for all the shocking things that these godless sinners have
said against Him.’
This verse has
amazed many Christians, for it mentions a writing that is not considered to be
part of the Bible canon, the Book of Enoch, which is generally viewed as
being an uninspired secular work.
Yet if such a book was truly written by Enoch
(an early man of faith who was so loved that he was ‘transferred’ by God);
Why
would we consider it uninspired?
And if it were a fake;
Why would Jude have
quoted from it?
If you read the Book
of Enoch all the way through (a copy can be found at Sacred-Texts.com),
you’ll see that Jude’s unique description of the condition of the fallen
messengers of God (as described in Jude 6) is based on the information found
in this book.
So, can we say that this ‘Book of Enoch’ is inspired and
should therefore be included as scripture in the Bible, since it is included in the book of Jude?
According to some
historians, the ancient copies of the Book of Enoch (which Jude was quoting
from) were actually lost (remember that ancient documents such as this were
hand-written copies).
However, more modern copies may have been found in Ethiopia
and in some Slavic countries, which have been translated into English.
(For more
information, see the link, ‘Book
of Enoch’).
And after reading one copy of these texts, we were surprised to
find how much of this supposedly pre-Christian document is in harmony with the
words of Jesus and with the Bible book of Revelation.
However, if it really ever
was an inspired work, it clearly has numerous errors today, which would
indicate that through the centuries, it has been mistranslated and words have
been added (which is also true of many Bible books such as Matthew, by the
way).
In fact, the wording of the entire book heavily reflects the religious
doctrines, views, and words that were prominent during the ‘dark’ Middle Ages.
So if the current
available copies of the book of Enoch were ever inspired, they are totally
corrupted today.
And if it was actually in existence in the time of the Scribe
Ezra (c. 537-BCE), who is credited with compiling the thirty-nine books of the
Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT), and if it is not a later non-inspired
writing as many claim, it was likely so corrupted by the time of the Jew’s
return from captivity in Babylon that Ezra didn’t include it among the sacred
writings.
For example; one of the corruptions that can be found in the Book of Enoch in Chapter Ten, is a graphic description of a Hell Fire that reflects the teachings of the Catholic Church during the middle ages, but which cannot be found in an in-depth study of the original Bible texts.
Yet on the other
hand; by removing just a few words, you will see that the descriptions read
much like Revelation Chapter Twenty.
So it could be that the problem is more
one of twisted translating or copying to reflect the popular religious views of
the Middle Ages, than a text that was originally incorrect.
Nevertheless, some scholars
point to these quotations from the book of Enoch to prove that the book of Jude
is itself a spurious addition to the Bible (Jude was one of the last books to
be included in the Bible canon of the Christian Era Scriptures). For his
quotations from what many believe to be an ancient spurious writing certainly
brings the authenticity of the book of Jude itself into question.
And this
hinges on whether the Book of Enoch was a truly inspired work during the First
Century CE.
Notice that the City
of Sodom is also mentioned in the modern Book of Enoch. And this is
interesting, because Enoch lived before the Downpour of Noah’s time, and Sodom
was a city that existed during the time of AbraHam (many hundreds of years
later).
However, it has been suggested by an advisor that Sodom could have been
the name of a far more ancient city that existed prior to the Downpour, and
which may have been a center of wickedness in the lifetime of Enoch also (but
we doubt this).
So if the mention
of this city didn’t come from a later corruption of the text, it could be the
final proof that the whole book of Enoch is uninspired, and this may also cast
a shadow over the authenticity of the Bible book of Jude.
But then, who knows?
However, it has also
been suggested that Jude wasn’t really quoting from the modern book of Enoch
(which certainly bears the tracks of more recent writers and thinking).
But
rather, he was quoting from more ancient texts that no longer exist, and that
the modern Book of Enoch just included parts of these texts.
Either way, we
urge you to be extremely cautious when reading the Book of Enoch.
But if the Book of Enoch was once truly inspired (and the Book of Jude may give credence to this), it does provide some interesting descriptions of significant events, names, and dates that aren’t found in more accepted Bible texts, which would be extremely important if they are true.
There are some
interesting idiosyncrasies in the book of Judges that lead us to question who
actually wrote it.
We receive one clue from the words found at Judges 1:21,
where we read:
‘Nor did the children of BenJamin take JeruSalem from the Jebusites as their
inheritance; so the Jebusites still live among the children of BenJamin in
JeruSalem to this day.’
Then we read at
Judges 18:1:
‘There was no king over IsraEl back then.’
Therefore, whoever
did the writing must have lived during the time when a king ruled IsraEl, but
before the time of David, who conquered the city and started the first rule
from JeruSalem.
This indicates that the Book of Judges was written during the
reign of Saul.
And if so, the Prophet SamuEl is most-likely the person who
wrote it.
However, notice the
apparent contradiction found at Judges 18:30, where we read:
‘And JoNathan (the son of Gerson and grandson of Manasseh) and his sons became
the Priests of the tribe of Dan until the time when the nation was captured
and carried away [into captivity].’
These words would
then indicate that the book was written sometime after IsraEl’s conquest by the
Assyrians and JeruSalem’s conquest by the Babylonians, or in the late 4th
Century BCE.
Therefore, the likely writer then would be the Scribe Ezra.
So,
how do we resolve the differences?
Well, we can see
from the context that the book of Judges was written close to the time of the
Judges (perhaps by SamuEl), then it appears as though a later copyist (perhaps
Ezra) added the comment at Judges 18:30.
And since this comment is found both
in the Hebrew and Greek texts, we know that these words were likely added
sometime in the late 4th Century BCE.
Much has been
written about the meaning of Solomon’s words, where he wrote (at Ecclesiastes
11:1):
‘aposteilon ton arton epi prosopon tou hydatos oti en plethei ton hemeron
heureseis auton,’
Or,
‘Send the bread yours on face the waters and in many the days find it.’
And we have often been repulsed by the thought of receiving cold, soggy bread.
So, what was King Solomon actually talking about?
While the Greek word
arton is usually translated as bread, loaf, or loaf of
bread; in ancient times, it also referred to just grains of wheat.
This was
the case where Jesse gave ‘bread’ to his youngest son David to carry to his
brothers in battle, which consisted of both roasted grain and loaves (see 1
Samuel 17:17).
And so;
The apparent
meaning of Solomon’s words are as we have rendered them:
‘Scatter your [seeds] on the water,
And after some time you will find them.’
Though the
meaning of these words as we have rendered them may still seem a bit vague;
Realize that birds usually eat seeds
that are scattered over dry ground.
So, the practice at the time was to do
planting before or after a hard rain or after irrigation, and the seeds were
figuratively scattered ‘on the water’ to cause them to germinate and quickly root.
Of course, Solomon
wasn’t really giving advice on planting.
His words were in the form of a
parable or illustration, and they implied that giving much to others will
result in our receiving much in return.
The Greek word pneuma (as in pneumonia,
a breathing disease) means breath or wind – the movement of air.
In other Bible translations, this word is often translated as spirit or ghost,
as in Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
However, spirit is just a shortened
form of the Latin word spiritu, which once again just means breath.
And ghost conveys another meaning altogether.
In the Bible, the
most common use of the word pneuma is to convey the idea of a force that
can’t be seen, such as breath or wind.
And the problem with
translating it as spirit or ghost, as is done in other Bibles, is
that those words have been given religious meanings that aren’t really implied
by the Greek texts.
So, wrong doctrines have been built upon a misunderstanding
of the true Greek meaning of the word.
Notice that we have usually translated the Greek word pneuma
as breath and occasionally as wind, in most places where it is found.
However, there are many
exceptions, as in instances where the Bible refers to demons as ‘spirits.’
Translating pneuma as breath in these cases, though correct, might
just be confusing.
So there are other places where we have left pneuma
translated as spirit, since that English word has taken on a meaning of
its own.
For example;
There
are instances where the word pneuma is speaking of a person’s motivation
(the spirit behind why we do something).
Therefore, we have
translated pneuma as spirit in such locations, as we have also
done in several places that speak of God’s Holy Spirit, where readers will
better understand the meaning in Modern English.
Nevertheless, rendering
it as [God’s] Holy Breath (which we have done in other places) is really
more accurate and a clarification.
For an example;
See the Note, ‘Worshiping God In Spirit and Truth.’
Another important
use of the word pneuma is in the phrase, ‘Breath of Life.’
This term
appears to mean more than just breathing, for it seems to refer to the entire
mechanics of life itself.
It appears to be the unseen force of life within all living
creatures that makes each cell alive.
However, nowhere
does the Bible describe the ‘pneuma’ as immortal, nor is it the same as the
soul (a breathing thing);
So, it can (figuratively) return to the God that gave
it when someone dies, because all hope of future life depends on God and His
promise of a resurrection.
Note in particular
how the term pneuma is found in the Greek Septuagint text at Job 27:3,
where Job asked:
‘Does the breath of the Divine One remain in my nose?’
As you can see from
his application of this word;
Pneuma is referring to actual breath here,
not to God’s Holy Spirit, for he was clearly talking about that which caused him
(Job) to breathe… the Breath of Life.
It is interesting that
at Genesis 6:3, God said concerning the wicked people on earth before the
Downpour:
‘I won’t allow My Breath to stay with these men through the age, for they are
fleshly.’
In Greek, that
reads:
‘Ou me katameine to pneuma mou en tois anthropois toutoiseis ton aiona,
dia ai einai autous sarka,’
Or,
‘Not not should stay the Breath Mine with these men the age through,
their being flesh.’
Notice that most other Bibles translate the
word pneuma as Spirit here.
Yet, while the words Breath Mine (pneuma
mou) could possibly refer to God’s Holy Breath, it seems more likely that
He was really referring to the breath of life that He gave to Adam…
For the wicked people of that age didn’t demonstrate that they had the Breath
or Spirit of God.
And from this, it appears as though what God was saying is
that the breath of life of the people of that age (which came from Him) would be removed prematurely,
or that they would die.
Also note that, since God
referred to it as ‘My Breath,’ there may be a link implied between
God’s Holy Breath and the breath of life.
For more information, see the linked
document, ‘The Powers of God’s Holy Spirit.’
You can see how
rendering the word pneuma as breath can clarify the meaning of the
verse found at John 19:30, where it says concerning
the death of Jesus (in Greek):
‘kai klinas ten kephalen paredoken to pneuma,’
or,
‘And inclined his head giving/up the breath.’
So rather than
saying that Jesus gave up his spirit (which is how it is rendered in
other Bibles), implying that Jesus then went to God (which he didn’t, because
the Bible tells us that he didn’t go there until forty days later);
The obvious
reference here is to his giving up ‘the breath of life,’ or the force that
maintained Jesus’ life as a human.
There are many
places in the Scriptures that speak of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, and Acts 1:14 is one of those places.
Were these Jesus’
fleshly brothers, or was the writer (Luke) referring to his ‘spiritual’
brothers?
The context provides
the answer.
The fact that Jesus’ brothers are mentioned here in addition to
his Apostles, disciples, and his mother (Mary), indicates that these were fleshly
brothers (other children of Mary).
While some critics
have claimed the Bible’s Gospel accounts weren’t written for more than a
century after Jesus’ death; internal proofs, such as Matthew’s use of the city
name Caesarea Philippi, show that this book had to be written prior to
the middle of the First Century CE.
For that city (which is near the border of
Lebanon) was only called Caesarea Philippi during the brief reign of the
Herods.
Rather, the common name both before and after the Herods was ‘Panas,’
after the Roman God Pan, whose idol was located there.
So, since this fact would have been lost to history just a few years after the Herods, it proves that the Book of Matthew had to be written shortly after Jesus’ execution and before 50-CE.
This city is also mentioned three times in the Gospel of Mark,
which was written after 50-CE.
But his Gospel (that was written in Greek for Greek-speaking
proselytes) was clearly based on the writings of Matthew
(before Matthew’s Gospel became available in Greek), thus we find the same use of the
name.
One of the most
commonly asked Bible questions is: Where did Cain get his wife?
Yet, the answer
is quite simple;
He married one of his sisters (see Genesis
5:4).
Understand that the Bible only lists the births of principal
characters, such as Cain, Abel, and Seth (from whom we descended).
But Adam and
Eve obviously had many, many children, both sons and daughters.
Does marrying a sister sound immoral or illogical?
Well, it was a common practice in Bible times.
Take for example the righteous man Abram (AbraHam). He married his
half-sister Sarah, for their common father was Terah (see Genesis 20:12).
Thereafter, AbraHam sent his servant to
his closest relatives to take a wife for his son IsaAc (IsaAc’s first cousin, Rebecca…
who was also a granddaughter of Terah).
This pattern of taking close relatives as wives was then followed by both of IsaAc’s sons,
Jacob and Esau, who also married first cousins that were descended from Terah.
So what we call incest
today wasn’t illegal or immoral in early Bible times.
For more information, see
the subheading, ‘Incest’ in the
linked document, Christian Morality.
There seems to be quite a bit of difference between the Bible’s use of the words called,
and chosen, and their implications for the people involved.
For notice
what Jesus said as recorded at Matthew 22:14:
‘However, many are called but few are chosen (gr. polloi eisin
gar cletoi, oligoi de eclectoi).’
And this verse could be possibly even be translated as:
‘Many are nominated, but few are elected.’
These words of Jesus
seem to put an end to the notion that everyone who is called by God was
foreordained to a favored position before his/her birth (as some teach).
For
what he said here seems to indicate is that there would be people who would be
chosen from among a larger number of those that are ‘called.’ And not all who
are called will be chosen.
This is elaborated on at Revelation 17:14, where it
says that those who are ‘called, elected, and faithful’ will be fellow
conquerors with Jesus.
So ‘the called’ also have to prove faithful and then be
‘elected’ or ‘chosen’ in order to be with Jesus when he conquers.
This seems to have
been the point of Jesus’ parable of those who were invited to a banquet by a
king, as found at Matthew 22:1-14, which (as Jesus said) was an illustration
concerning ‘the Kingdom of Heaven (or of God).’
Because in that parable;
Though many
were ‘called’ to the banquet, they didn’t choose to come.
And the obvious
reference here is to the Jews that were the first to be invited, but who for the
most part, rejected the invitation.
So the story goes on to tell us that the king
then ordered his slaves to go out into the streets and ‘call’ anyone that wished
to come to the banquet…
Which obviously referred to the calling of people of
the nations or the gentiles (gr. tas ethne – the ethnics).
But is this parable
talking about being called to heaven to rule with Jesus…
For isn’t the
wedding banquet for God’s son to be held in heaven, and aren’t those that are
invited to God’s banquet the same as the bride that will be with Jesus in
heaven?
We have always thought so, but notice that the guests in this parable
aren’t referred to as virgins (as was the case of those mentioned in
Revelation 14:1-4).
Rather, Jesus spoke of them as, ‘both the wicked and the
good,’ which is a strange way to refer to the ‘Saints.’
Also notice that at
Isaiah 65:23, we read that God’s elected (or ‘chosen’) are spoken of as fathering
children.
For we read there:
‘My elected won’t labor for nothing,
Nor will they produce children for a curse;
For their seed and all their descendants,
Will then be blessings from God.’
So if this
reference to the elected in Isaiah has reference to the same elected of whom
Jesus was speaking (and we suspect that it does);
Then these ‘chosen’ or
‘elected’ may have the hope of living on the earth, where they will father (or
give birth to) children.
Also notice that, as the
parable in Matthew continues;
Jesus said that the king saw a guest that wasn’t
properly dressed for a wedding feast (he apparently didn’t have the required
qualities).
So this guest was then bound and thrown outside of the banquet hall
(but not killed).
So it appears as though:
Although he was called, he wasn’t chosen.
And if this banquet of which Jesus spoke was to
be held in heaven, we would then have to ask,
Was this person being kicked
out of heaven?
And if so;
Why was he taken there to begin with?
Therefore,
the conclusion that we must reach is that Jesus’ parable of those who were
invited to the banquet doesn’t refer to being called to heaven, but rather, to
being called as Christians.
And the ‘electing’ seems to refer to being found
faithful and worthy of a special position with Jesus.
Is this the same position that Paul (the Apostle)
was speaking about at Philippians 3:10-12, when he said:
‘Therefore, I’ve been willing to share in his sufferings and resign myself to a
death like [that of Jesus] so that I can somehow be found worthy of an
out-resurrection from the dead.
[I’m
not saying] that I’ve made it yet or that I’m already perfect, just that I’m
chasing after it…
I’m trying to grab hold of that for which the
Anointed Jesus grabbed hold of me!’
And he continued
with the words (at Philippians 3:14):
‘I’m running toward the goal, the prize of the higher (gr. ano – upward or
higher) calling from God, through the Anointed Jesus.’
So, is there more than one type of calling… a general
calling of those who (if elected) will bring forth children on the earth, and a
‘higher’ or ‘upward’ calling?
We don’t know.
But notice that in this text in Philippians, Paul
spoke of a different type of resurrection, the ‘out resurrection’ (gr. ek anastasin),
which seems to refer to being called to heaven, because Paul referred to it as
‘the higher calling from God.’
And there does appear to be special requirements for
one to be so chosen.
What did Paul say would
be the requirement for achieving the higher calling?
He said that he would have
to ‘share in [Jesus’] sufferings and resign [himself] to a death like [that of
Jesus] so [he could] somehow be found worthy.’
Therefore, it appears as though
the requirement to receive such a calling is that a person must first endure
incredible suffering for his/her beliefs (as did Jesus and Paul);
For notice
what Paul wrote at Romans 8:17:
‘We have to suffer together so we can also be glorified together.’
It has been argued
that Jesus’ use of the word camel at Matthew 19:24 was really a humorous
play on words. For if he was speaking Aramaic (which many claim that he was),
the word he used was gmla, which can be translated as either camel
or rope.
Why were camels called ropes?
Because the ancients used
descriptive words for animals. So horses were called hypos (translated
as mounts) and camels were called ropes, which referred to the
way they were led.
On the other hand;
If Jesus spoke Greek (which we doubt), he would have called the animal a camelon.
And though camelon likely came from the same root as the more ancient Aramaic
word, it only meant camel in Greek (not rope).
As you can see; if
Jesus said gmla (in Aramaic), he was really saying that it would be
easier to ‘thread a rope through the eye of a needle,’ which in the
context makes more sense than camel.
And this amusing play on words
(camel/rope) would have helped his listeners to remember the idea of his
parable.
You have likely
noticed that we are putting multiple capital letters in many of the Bible
names.
For example, we’ve started spelling such names as Jonathan as JoNathan,
Isaiah as IsaiAh, and Eliezer as EliEzer.
Why?
Well, partly to help with the
correct pronunciations of the names, and partly to show some translating
consistency.
Of course, the
common English pronunciation of Jonathan (for example) is Jon-uh-thun.
But the
first part of that name (Io in Greek, Ieho in Hebrew) refers to
the name of God, commonly pronounced as Jehovah in English, but possibly
pronounced in Hebrew as Yeh-ho-wah).
And the second part of the Name
(Nathan) means Gift.
So in Hebrew, the name of Saul’s son was originally
pronounced closer to Yeh-ho-Nuh-thahn.
The same is true in
the case of names that end with an iah, as in Isaiah.
For the last
part of the name includes the name of God in this case.
Isaiah, for example, means Salvation
[of] JehovAH, and it was originally pronounced Ee-suh-Yah.
Yes, we know that the Brits pronounce it Ai-sai-ah; but understand the letter
‘i’ was likely pronounced as a long ‘e’ by the ancients.
Also, by the time the
NT was written, the name took on the pronunciation ‘Hsai-ah,’ due to the Greek
influence.
Then notice that in
this name (as in many other Bible names) the IE has actually been changed to a
J in English Bibles, due to the way the letters were transposed in older
Spanish writings.
Unfortunately though, this process wasn’t followed
consistently by ancient Bible translators.
So while some names are spelled with
a J in most English Bibles, many others are still spelled with an Ie or Iah.
Another important
Hebrew word that is found in Bible names is ‘El’ (from the Hebrew Elohe,
or God).
So the name EliEzer, for example, (which people commonly pronounce
ee-lai-ee-zer) means God [has] Helped and it should be pronounced
Elee-ezzer.
There are other
Hebrew words that are found in the prefixes and suffixes of Bible names that
you’ll see we have also capitalized.
For example, you’ll find the word Ai,
which is the Hebrew word for city.
So AiLam (for example) probably meant
the City of Lam.
And where you find the prefixes Bel (as in BelShazzar),
or BaAl, or BeEl, they refer to ‘the Lord.’
Also, the prefixes ‘Ben’ and ‘Bar’
mean ‘the son of,’ ‘Beth’ means ‘the house of,’ ‘Beer’ refers to a ‘well,’ ‘Is’
or ‘Ish’ means ‘Man,’ etc.
Does this mean that
we have put all the capitals in the right places?
No, for we make no claim to
Hebrew scholarship (all our translating here has been from Greek).
But what we
are trying to do is to provide you with a better understanding to how these
names were pronounced by First-Century Christians.
We have translated
Paul’s words found at Ephesians 4:8 (which he was quoting from Psalm 68:18) as
reading:
‘To the highest places, he has stepped up,
And he’s taken captivity as his captive;
Then he gave gifts to the people.’
This has been a very
difficult verse for anyone to translate in Ephesians and in the Psalms, because
what the verses say in the OT and NT texts don’t really agree in their
meanings, and neither text appears to make any sense in the original language
as we have it today.
Note:
· The literal (word-for-word) translation of
Ephesians 4:8 from the available Greek text reads:
‘Through/which he/is/saying Having/stepped/up into height he/led/captive
captivity and gave gifts to/the people.’
· The literal translation of Psalm 68:18 from
the Greek text of the Septuagint reads:
‘You/ascended into the/height, you/captured captivity, you/received gifts in
people.’
· The literal translation of Psalm 68:18 from
the available Hebrew (Masoretic) text reads:
‘you/have/ascended high, have/led captives, have/received gifts people.’
As you can see, the
meanings differ widely;
For the NT text says that [Jesus] GAVE gifts to the
people, while both OT texts say that the gifts were RECEIVED (by Jesus).
So it
is obvious that there are errors in at least one of the texts and perhaps in
all three.
Which of these is the correct rendering?
Since we know that
Paul had God’s Holy Breath (Spirit), and we know that he was using older OT
texts than we have today, we are going to trust that he came the closest to
quoting what the Psalm originally said.
And to be sure;
When attempting to
arrive at the proper translation of a scripture, it helps to take a look at
what the preceding and following verses have to say, to see if the words (as
they were translated) harmonize with the context.
Notice that the
words that immediately precede Ephesians 4:8 say:
‘Now, the amount of caring that was shown to each of us depends on how much
of the gift the Anointed One measured out to us.’
So from the context, we can see that Paul was quoting Psalm 68:18 to show that the Gifts were being measured out to the people in the congregation.
However, verse
eleven is often used to contradict this conclusion.
For it says (in Greek):
‘kai autos edoken tous men apostolous tous de prophetas,’
or,
‘and to/them he/gave those
indeed apostles, those but prophets.’
And from these few words, many self-righteous males in positions of authority have made the claim that THEY
are the gifts that Jesus measured out to the congregation.
Notice that such
Bibles as New Living Translation render this verse as reading:
‘Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets,
the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.’
However, the Greek text doesn’t actually say that they were the gifts or that these gifts were selected from among just the males in the congregations.
Note that the Greek
word that is used in verse 8 is anthropon (people)… not aner
(males).
Yet, most other Bibles incorrectly translate anthropon as men, which gives the false
impression that the gifts were given to just the males (not also to females, whom
the Bible tells us also received the gifts of the Spirit).
The same is true of
the Hebrew word that used at Psalm 68:18. For that word is usually translated
as men, when (as in the case of the Greek word) it actually means people.
However, most Bible commentators
agree that the gifts being mentioned here were those of apostleship,
prophesying, etc., rather than the male individuals that served as Apostles,
Prophets, etc.
In other words;
The gifts that he gave were the gifts of the
Spirit, which were poured out upon all in the congregation and which created the Apostles, Prophets,
etc.
Therefore, we have rendered verse eleven as reading:
‘Then he gave some to be Apostles, some to be Prophets, some to be messengers
of the Good News, and some to be shepherds and teachers.’
Note:
The following comment was provided by Tim Mitchell, the editor of Peshitta
Inc:
‘The Psalm version that Paul is quoting seems to be reflected in the OT
Peshitta Psalms.
He is either quoting from the Peshitta Psalms directly or he
is quoting from the text that the Peshitta Psalms was translated from. Here is
the text of the Psalm from the OT Peshitta (First Century Aramaic Bible):
You
have ascended on high and you have captured captivity and you have given gifts
to the children of men and rebels will not dwell before God.
Also,
Ephesians 4:8 from the Peshitta NT is an exact match for the Peshitta OT in
this place (Original Aramaic New Testament).
He ascended to the heights and
took captivity prisoner and he has given gifts to the children of men.’
It has long been
assumed that the mention of the ‘captives of Solomon’ mentioned at Amos 1:6, 9 is a Septuagint
mistake.
For the Masoretic (Hebrew) text doesn’t specify a particular race or
people in these texts.
It just tells us that whole populations were carried
away to Edom.
However, the fact
that both Solomon and David had captured and used people from the surrounding
gentile nations as soldiers and as high officials in their realms is often
overlooked.
For example:
We know that the Cherethites and Pelethites that served
and fought for King David were gentiles, and that many Edomites (descendants of
Esau), though still slaves, were also given supervisory positions in his realm
(see 2 Samuel 8:13-18).
Therefore, it could well be that the Septuagint rendering of Amos 1:6, 9 is in fact the superior text, since it seems to refer to these subject peoples as the ones that had been carried off as captives.
At Revelation 4:6-8
were read of four animals (gr. zoa) that were covered with eyes, each of
which had a different type of face, and they stood at the four corners of God’s
throne.
Yet, notice that this is the same descriptions of the animals that are
called ‘cherubs’ in the book of Ezekiel (see Ezekiel
10:20-24).
And this is why we have rendered them as cherubs (rather than
zoa or animals) in Revelation… so as to prompt you to look
up this reference and understand the true meaning of what you are reading.
Note however, that
there is a difference between the descriptions of the cherubs in the Bible
books.
For in Ezekiel, each of the cherubs are described as having four
different faces. But in the Revelation, the cherubs each have a single (but a
different) face.
Which is correct?
We don’t know. But we are sure that the same
description should be found in both texts.
We are sorry to use
such an unfamiliar term, but the common term Ark of the Covenant may not
accurately describe the sacred box that originally held the tablets of the Ten
Commandments, the writings of Moses, the manna, and the walking stick of Aaron.
For the meaning of the ancient English word ‘ark’ has been lost in history, and
the second word, ‘covenant’ (meaning, sacred agreement) isn’t always
used as part of the name in the Greek text.
Note that in some
places in the Septuagint text, it is called the kiboton marturion, which
literally means, Box [of] Testimony.
And the reason why it could be
properly called that, is because the box was built to hold the Proofs of the
things that God did for IsraEl.
So this is why, wherever the words kiboton
marturion appear in the text, we have called it the Chest of Proofs.
However, it was in
fact called the Chest of the Sacred Agreement (or Ark of the Covenant) at
Exodus 27:21 and in other places.
But after the IsraElites settled in the
Promised Land, it was always referred to as the kiboton marturion, or Chest of
Proofs in the Septuagint text.
Something that most
people don’t realize though, is that during the time of the Prophet SamuEl and
the High-Priest Eli, the Philistines captured the Chest, emptied its contents,
and returned it to IsraEl empty.
According to the Bible account there, they
returned it because it brought a plague on their people (see 1 Samuel 5:12).
However, later on, the
sacred tablets containing the Ten Commandments are once again mentioned as
being in the Chest during the time of King Solomon (but nothing else… see 1 Kings 8:9);
So we must assume that these
less-perishable items had been found and returned.
Just where was the
Prophet EzekiEl when he received his many visions and words from God?
He says
that he was along the ChoBar (or CheBar) River in Babylon… and many assume that
he was living in the city of Babylon along its Grand Canal (which could still
be true).
However, note that living in the land of Babylon isn’t
necessarily the same as living in the City of Babylon; for the land of
Babylon covered a vast empire.
Understand that when
the kings of Babylon deported and resettled whole nations, there was obviously
not enough room to keep them in just a single city.
So it is likely that only
the top officials or royalty were taken to their capital city, since the city
itself was too small to handle the influx of millions of deported foreigners.
Therefore, although
DaniEl and others of noble birth were in fact taken to the city of Babylon, it
seems as though the majority of the commoners were deported to some other
location in that land…
Which would explain why EzekiEl speaks in awe of
faithful DaniEl, but he doesn’t mention speaking to or dealing with him
directly, as you would expect if they lived nearby.
However, even DaniEl
didn’t live in Babylon after it was invaded.
Rather, we read that he lived in
Persian city of Susa, where he had been taken by King Darius shortly before his
death.
For what is thought to be Daniel’s Tomb is still found there (see the
link Susa).
A likely location
for the Jewish resettlement (and that of EzekiEl) is actually quite some distance
west of the city of Babylon and directly north of Palestine, on the eastern
side of the land of Syria or in modern Turkey.
For there we find a river with a name that has a
very similar name to ChoBar, the Khabur.
So, many Bible
scholars now accept this as the site of that relocation and as the place where
EzekiEl did his writing.
This location, which
is much closer to JeruSalem, seems more likely, since EzekiEl’s prophecies were
primarily against Judah and JeruSalem, and his messages were to be carried back
there.
This would of course have been difficult if EzekiEl did his prophesying
and writing in the far-away city of Babylon (a three-month journey away).
Some have commented
on the fact that though this Bible translates the Greek word Christon
(Christ) as Anointed One, we have left the words Christian and Antichrist
unchanged.
Why is this?
Under the Note, ‘Anointed,’ we pointed
out that Christon means Anointed or Chosen One,
and using the Anglicized corruption of the Greek word Christon
doesn’t really convey the proper meaning to most Bible readers today.
This is
why, rather than speaking of Jesus as the Christ, we have chosen to
speak of him as the Anointed One, which is what the word ‘Christ’ really
meant to First-Century Christians.
However, this isn’t
the case with the word Christian (which literally means Follower of the
Anointed One), because nothing is commonly misunderstood about that term.
So, rendering it as ‘Anointed One-ians,’ or anything similar would simply be
confusing, since the word ‘Christian’ has been the name that is universally
applied to Jesus’ followers since the time of the Apostles, and it doesn’t lead
to a misunderstanding, as does the word Christ.
This is also the reason why we
have left the word Antichrist unchanged.
Please note that the
purpose here is not to use obscure terms for consistency, but rather, to help
readers understand the true meanings of the words that are used in the Bible.
For more information, see the linked document, ‘Christians,
Jews, and Moslems.’
In Jesus’ discussion
about the sheep and goats, as found at Matthew 25:34, he said:
‘Then the king will tell those on his right:
Come, you who’ve been praised
by my Father; inherit the Kingdom that’s been prepared for you from the founding
of the world.’
In Greek, the words
we have translated as founding of the world are katabole kosmou.
You may recognize that the English word cosmos is a derivative of kosmou,
as are also the words, cosmetics and cosmetology, and cosmos is
the word that modern peoples usually use when referring to the universe.
So
notice that we could have also (correctly) translated it as, ‘founding of the arrangement,’
since arrangement is the closest English translation of the Greek word kosmos.
For example, when
Paul urged Christian women to dress modestly, he used the word kosmos to
describe well-arranged clothing.
However, in other Bibles, kosmos
is almost always translated as world, which is a bit misleading, because
most English-speaking people often think that world means the same thing
as the earth.
In the Hebrew texts
of the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT), we don’t find a word that is similar to
‘kosmos.’
Rather, we find the Hebrew word teᶥl used.
And though that
word is also translated into English as world; in the Greek Septuagint
it was translated as oikoumene in every case, which refers to the habitation
or home of mankind.
So where oikoumene is used (as it is many times in the
Christian Era Scriptures), the meaning is more similar to the earth.
Notice that although
the Greek words kosmos and oikoumene don’t mean the same things, both words are
commonly translated as world in other Bibles… which can be very
misleading.
For where kosmos is always translated as world (as in the world
of Noah, the light of the world, the field is the world, etc.),
the result is often a misunderstanding of what was truly meant.
Because, there are
some fifteen definitions given to the word world in English
dictionaries, and most don’t carry the same meaning as the Greek word kosmos.
So in many (but not all) places, world is a poor choice for translating
the Greek word kosmos.
As an example:
Kosmos is often used in the Greek text to describe the arrangement or situation
of human society in general, and at other times it is used to describe just the
IsraElite or Jewish arrangement (not the whole world).
So the terms system
of things or arrangement are frequently the better and more accurate
word choices when translating it.
Notice how the word kosmos
was used by Paul at Romans 5:12:
‘Sin entered the arrangement (kosmos)
through one man, and this sin resulted in death.
So by this [one] sin,
death was passed on to all men and they have all sinned.’
Here you can see
that the arrangement Paul was talking about was the one that began with Adam.
However, the Scriptures indicate that there was another arrangement or system
of things, which began after the Downpour of Noah’s day and which Noah
inherited.
For notice what we are told at Hebrews 11:7:
‘It was because of [his] faith in a Divine Warning about things which were not
yet seen that Noah was moved by fear to build a chest for the saving of his
[family].
And through this righteous faith he condemned that arrangement
and became its heir.’
Also notice what was said at 2 Peter 2:4, 5:
‘God didn’t spare the messengers that sinned, but threw them into the dark pits
of Tartarus where they are awaiting His justice.
And He didn’t spare that
first arrangement, but He guarded Noah (who was a preacher of
righteousness) along with seven others, when He brought a downpour upon a
world of godless people.’
So apparently, there
have been other arrangements:
1. The one that started before the Downpour with Adam, which Noah inherited
2. The new arrangement that started after the Downpour
3. Possibly a third arrangement that God created for His worship in JeruSalem
through Moses
4. Possibly the (Christian) arrangement that began with the death of Jesus.
Therefore (from the
above), we may conclude that what Jesus said about the Kingdom having been
prepared for the sheep since the founding of the world could mean that:
The
Kingdom was God’s plan for the righteous since at least the time of Adam’s
sin in Paradise, or possibly since the time of the Downpour, or since the time
that He established a system for His true worship in JeruSalem, or even since
the coming and death of Jesus.
For at Revelation 13:8 Jesus is referred to as:
‘The one that had been slaughtered from the founding of the arrangement’
(gr. esphagmenou apo kataboles kosmou, or, that/was/slaughtered from
foundation – or down-throw – kosmos).
Therefore, we could be living in an entirely new world, arrangement, or system
of things since the time of Jesus’ death.
The Greek word stauros
simply means pole.
So, regardless of popular tradition and doctrine,
there is no mention of a pole with a cross piece (cross) in the original Bible
text.
Also, we have translated the Greek word staurotheto (which other
Bibles render as crucified) as impaled (put on a pole or stake)
here, because that’s what it actually means.
Then, are we saying
that Jesus didn’t die on a cross?
Not necessarily, for there is quite a bit of
historical evidence to indicate that he did (see the link, ‘Instrument
of Jesus’ crucifixion’).
Yet, whether the Romans used an upright pole or
one with a cross beam as a means of torture and execution is really
unimportant.
For it’s only when people view such objects as something to which
they would pray (and many do) that the act is condemned in the Bible as being
idolatry.
Rather, what should be held as sacred to Christians is the person that
gave his life on our behalf, not the disgusting object of his execution.
In the Bible we read
of two different types of royal headgear that was worn by Kings… crowns (gr. stephanos)
and turbans (gr. diademas).
Which did the kings of IsraEl, such as David
and Solomon, wear?
A study of history
shows that most kings wore some sort of hat on official occasions, which varied
by time and by country.
However, in ancient IsraEl and in other middle-eastern
countries, the common headgear for kings was a turban that was set with gold
and jewels.
And this remained the custom throughout the history of the Jews.
Because, crowns with points were generally thought of by the faithful as
representing the rays of the sun (an idol), since gold crowns with points were
worn as ‘haloes’ by pagan kings to indicate their sign of appointment by (the
Sun) God.
The first Bible
reference to a gold crown being worn by a king is found at 2 Samuel 12:30, where David took one from
the head of the Ammonite king of RabBath, named Malchom.
And though the
account tells us that he then placed it on his own head, it doesn’t look like
wearing such a thing was the custom of kings of IsraEl thereafter.
For
the placing of Malchom’s crown on his head seems to represent David’s victory,
not his envy of the pagan king’s headgear.
Notice that at
Revelation 12:3, the Dragon is depicted as having seven heads and ten horns,
and on each of its heads was what is often rendered in other Bibles as diadems –
which most religious pictures portray as gold crowns.
However, these should
actually be depicted as turbans, because the Greek word used there is dia-dema
(through wraps or turbans), not stephanos (crowns).
Also notice that the
Greek word ‘stephanos’ doesn’t always mean a gold crown.
For if you look up the
dictionary meaning for stephanos,
you’ll see that it could also describe a victory wreath… and this is how we
have rendered the word in most cases.
For the Bible uses the word ‘stephanos’
more often as a sign of victory than of kingship.
And if you understand that,
it gives us a better understanding of the true meanings of these verses:
· 1 Corinthians 9:25:
‘And every fighter has to
maintain full control just to win a garland that rots away.’
· Philippians 4:1:
‘So, my brothers that are loved
and longed for (my joy and my victory garland); keep standing just as
you are in the Lord, O loved ones!’
· 1 Peter 5:4:
‘Then, when the Chief Shepherd is
revealed, you’ll walk away with the enduring garland of glory!’
The account at 2
Samuel 6:14 well illustrates the reason why we have come to trust the Greek
text over the Hebrew text.
For in the Septuagint, King David is described as
wearing a fine robe (στολην εξαλλον) while he danced in the parade
leading God’s Sacred Chest into JeruSalem for the first time, whereas the
Hebrew text says he was wearing just a linen ephod (vest).
So when his
wife Michal accused him of exposing himself while he danced, the conclusion
that the Hebrew text implies is that he celebrated bringing Jehovah’s Chest to
JeruSalem by dancing naked from the waist down, which doesn’t sound appropriate
or likely.
Rather, the Greek text shows that he was fully covered in fine
clothes, and Michal’s accusation was probably the hyperbole of a disgusted wife
who didn’t think that her husband was behaving as her father Saul would have
done.
Therefore, did David
actually expose his sexual parts?
Well, apparently the ancient IsraElites wore
no underpants beneath their robes, so lively dancing could theoretically have
exposed his under parts.
But the rest of Michal’s and David’s words seem to
indicate that she was more concerned about his dancing wildly and joyfully than
with the idea that he had truly exposed himself.
How long are God’s ‘days?’
Some say that they consist of 24 earth
hours, or one rotation of our planet (see Genesis 1:31 for
an example), while others say they are 1,000 years long (from the words of Peter
at 2 Peter 3:8), and yet others claim that they are 7,000 years long.
Is any of
this true?
Twenty-four Hours?
Religious Christians who call themselves ‘Fundamentalists’ say that God created
the heavens and the earth in seven earth days (168 hours). For they claim that
the Bible was being literal when describing each of the ‘days’ of creation in
the First Chapter of Genesis.
However, when they read at Genesis 2:4 that God
created the heavens and the earth in a day rather than six
individual days, it is usually assumed that the word ‘day’ was used
figuratively, meaning a period of time.
Therefore, while we will agree that the
dating methods used by modern archeologists aren’t always trustworthy, it does
seem as though the arguments of such fundamentalists are at best a bit
inconsistent and out of line with common sense.
One Thousand Years Long?
In Greek, 2 Peter 3:8
reads literally (word-for word as translated from the Greek text):
‘The moreover thing not let/be/hidden/from you beloved, that one day with/the
Lord/is LIKE (gr. hos) a/thousand years and a/thousand years/is LIKE
(gr. hos) day one.’
From this, you can
see that Peter wasn’t saying that God’s days are 1,000 years long.
He was just
pointing out that time isn’t relevant to God, since He lives in a realm where
time doesn’t exist.
The fact that we can
see the light of stars that are millions of light-years away, proves that our
universe has been around much longer than just a few thousand years.
For the
light coming from them (when traveling at 186,000 miles per second) would not
be visible to us here on the earth yet, if those distant stars were just a
few-thousand years old.
Seven Thousand Years Long?
Back in the late 1800s, some ‘Adventist’ theologians decided that each of the
creative ‘days’ of Genesis Chapter One had to be 7,000 years long.
So because
of this, they taught (and some still teach) that we are still in God’s sixth
creative day.
According to those
assumptions and calculations, it has been about 36,000 years since God started
forming the earth for human and animal population.
For they teach that we are
just 6,000 years into the sixth creative ‘day,’ which is about to end, and that
Jesus’ 1000-year reign (as mentioned in the Revelation) is going to start when
the seventh period (or ‘day’) within that 7,000 years begins.
However, we are actually
well past the end of six-thousand years since the time of Adam (for more information, see the subheading, ‘Theory 1 – Six Thousand
Years’ in the linked document, ‘Armageddon – When?’) and nothing has
happened.
So, what was wrong with their theory?
Well, the problem is that their calculations were based on errors in the Masoretic (Hebrew) Bible text, as well as on other wrong assumptions that have since been disproven by good sense and scientific discoveries.
So from this, we
must assume that the ‘days’ mentioned in the Genesis creation account were not
days as we would count them by the rotation of our earth as it goes around the
sun.
But rather, the reference to ‘days’ in the Genesis account refers to
periods of creation, the length of which are known only to God, during which He
did specific things.
Understand that the
words found at Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 were originally written poetically, likely as
the words of an ancient song that Moses recorded at the start of his writing of
the Book of Genesis.
You will notice this, if you pay attention to the opening
words of each phrase, such as, ‘Then The God spoke,’ and observe the length of
the sentences and the cadence of the words that follow.
Then, are we saying that the
Genesis creation account is just a nursery-rhyme song or fable?
No, for few would disagree with the accuracy of the order of the events that
are described in these Chapters.
And from this, we have to conclude that
someone who was there when these things happened must have had a hand in the
description and in the inspiration of the song, since the chance of ancient
humans getting everything in the right order is very unlikely.
So, our conclusion is that the First Chapter of Genesis
is truly God-inspired.
Yet, it was written in simplistic poetry,
possibly in a song that could easily be remembered and understood by ancient
peoples who had no understanding of the vastness of time or space.
Many people have
said that it is futile to try to determine when ‘the Day of the Lord’ will
arrive because of what Jesus said as recorded at Matthew 24:36:
‘No one knows the day and hour – no, not the messengers of heaven or the Son,
but only the Father.’
Yet, notice what Paul wrote at 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 4:
‘And whenever they are saying, ‘Peace and security;’ destruction will come upon
them instantly like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they won’t escape.
Therefore brothers;
Since you aren’t in the dark, don’t let that Day [sneak up]
on you like a thief.’
So from Paul’s
words, we can conclude that though the ‘day and hour’ wasn’t known when Jesus
was on the earth, world conditions and specifically a world-wide cry of ‘peace
and security’ will give true Christians clear indications of an impending end
to this age.
So, those that are awake won’t be surprised at its coming.
Throughout the Bible
we find references to ‘the Day of Jehovah,’ and ‘the Day of the Lord’ (Jesus).
Are both of these references speaking of the same period?
There appears to be
no conflict;
In fact, it could be that the wording in each case should always
read, ‘Day of the Lord,’ since we question whether the
Divine Name was originally ever used when speaking prophetically of this event.
However, even if both God and ‘the Lord’ are spoken of in connection with this
day, there is still no conflict.
For notice what we are told in the Revelation,
when it is speaking of the beginning of that Day (at Revelation 12:10):
‘Now has come the salvation and the power,
As well as the Kingdom of our God;
For His Anointed has now been empowered,
And the accuser of our brothers has been cast down,
Who blames them before God day and night!’
As you can see; the
purposes of that Day are tied together.
For the establishment of God’s
Kingdom (with the battle in heaven and the ouster of the Opposer and his
messengers) and the empowering
of Jesus (the Lord) to begin his rule, appear to be simultaneous.
So, will the things
spoken of in the Revelation happen before ‘the Lord’s Day’ begins?
No, for
notice that the book starts out with the words (at Revelation 1:10),
‘Through
the Breath [of God] I found myself in
the Lord’s Day.’
Therefore, we must assume that all the things mentioned in the Revelation will happen DURING the Lord’s Day.
Then, what are some
of the things to look for that will lead up to that Day?
Well, one of the first
signs mentioned is the ouster of the Opposer and his messengers from heaven
(see Revelation 12).
This is followed by the destruction of ‘The Great Babylon’
(See Revelation 17, 18).
Then in rapid succession comes the wedding reception
of the Lamb, the Battle of Armageddon, and the resurrections (see Revelation
19, 20).
And at the end of
the Lord’s Day, we read that the Opposer will be released from the abyss for a
short time, which leads to the battle against Gog of Magog …
And this is followed by the descent of ‘New JeruSalem’ to the earth and the
making of the ‘new land and new sky’ (see Revelation 21).
Notice that at
Leviticus 27:28, 29, God gave these instructions to Moses:
‘Anything a man has
that he chooses to curse before Jehovah, whether it’s a man, an animal, or a
field that he owns; it may never be sold or taken back.
Everything that is cursed
for destruction becomes very holy to Jehovah.
And whoever is cursed from among
mankind must not be ransomed, but must surely be put to death.’
Notice that this law
is talking about the cursing of vile people or nations.
And God was saying that
when such a vow is made, the person that makes the vow must surely complete it
by destroying the things and/or or the people whom he or she has cursed.
An example of the
outworking of such an oath can be found at Numbers 21:2, 3, where the
IsraElites swore an oath to God to dedicate a particular group of CanaAnites
and all of their cities to Him, if He would just give them the victory.
The
account says:
‘That was when IsraEl swore a vow to Jehovah, saying,
If you will hand them
over to us, we will dedicate them and their cities to You.
So, Jehovah
listened to the voices of [the people of] IsraEl and gave the Canaanites into
their hands, then they [totally destroyed] them and their cities.
And thereafter, they
started calling that place The Cursed.’
Understand that
vowing to curse someone or something is an extremely serious matter in the eyes
of God.
For when such a vow is made, the person doing the cursing becomes
obligated to God to carry out the curse.
And we find the
results of making such a curse too quickly in the heat of a fight or argument
discussed in Leviticus 24:11-25, where one
man swore a curse in God’s name against another, and he was thereafter stoned
to death for his foolish vow.
For it was a vow of murder.
At Acts 23:12 we find another case of a foolishly-made
vow to God, where a group of Jews swore not to eat until they had murdered Paul
(the Apostle).
But then they were unable to complete the unrighteous vow,
bringing God’s condemnation upon themselves.
And the thing that we learn from
the law and from the results of such cursing (when we ask God to damn someone),
is that the damnation may come upon ourselves.
In the account found
at Luke 8:26-39, Jesus encountered a man that was possessed by many demons,
which he thereafter cast out of him and sent into a nearby herd of pigs.
Then as Jesus was
leaving, the man asked Jesus if he could come with him (become one of Jesus’
disciples).
However, Jesus told him no, and to just return to his town and tell
the people there what had happened.
These actions of
Jesus may seem strange to some, because he had never declined an offer for
someone to become a disciple, nor did he want people spreading the news about
his miracles.
So, why did he react so differently in this case?
Well, notice that
the land where he did this was outside of the borders of IsraEl, in a Greek
settlement called the DecaPolis
(Ten Cities), near one city that may have been called Geras (since it was
called the land of the Gerasenes).
Therefore, the man was likely a
gentile that lived in a gentile land (notice that they were herders of pigs,
which were unclean animals to the Jews).
And since Jesus’ commission from God
was just for him to go to the Jews and the related Samaritans, this gentile would have
been an inappropriate disciple in the land of IsraEl.
One of the strange
results of the common belief that our ‘souls’ or ‘spirits’ leave our bodies
when we die, is that it leads people to believe that we are surrounded by
spirits of dead people that can haunt and harm us.
In fact, there are many TV
programs that tell of unnatural occurrences, which they attribute to the
spirits of those that died there.
Yet, any study of ancient religions shows that
such beliefs come from pagan traditions, not from the Bible.
For throughout the
Bible we read instead of ‘demons’ being the true source of such unearthly
things, and these aren’t the spirits of dead humans.
What are demons?
Well, although many people believe in the existence of ‘extra-terrestrials’
(creatures that come from other planets), they don’t choose to believe what the
Bible says about the existence of evil ‘spirit’ (breath-like) beings that have
lived since the dawn of creation…
Other ‘sons of God’ that have chosen a
rebellious course of existence, and are called ‘demons.’
Are there really
demons?
Yes, for the Bible tells us (at Deuteronomy 32:16, 17):
‘With strange gods, they enraged Me,
And with loathsome things, made Me angry.
For, to unknown demons, they offered sacrifices,
And not to the God [of all] gods.’
Psalm 96:55:
‘For the gods of the nations are demons,
But Jehovah created the skies.’
Psalm 106:35-38:
‘They mixed with the nations and learned of their ways,
And served their idols to offend Him.
They offered their sons and daughters to demons…
They poured out innocent blood…
The blood of their own sons and daughters.
To CanaAn’s carvings they sacrificed them,
And polluted the land with murder and blood.’
Isaiah 65:3:
‘Before Me they stand and [do evil things]…
For they sacrifice in their gardens
And burn incense on bricks before demons!
Matthew 12:24:
‘But on hearing that, the Pharisees said,
He’s throwing out demons by [the
power of] BeElZebub, the ruler of the demons!’
Luke 5:41:
‘Demons also came out of many of them, shouting,
You’re the Son of God!’
Luke 8:30:
‘So Jesus asked him: What is your name?
And he replied,
Legion (because many demons had entered him).’
1 Corinthians 10:20:
‘I’m telling you that the things the nations offer as sacrifices are being
offered to the demons, not to God…
And I
don’t want you to become sharers with the demons!’
1 Timothy 4:1:
‘However, the Spirit definitely says that some will leave the faith in the
future and pay attention to wicked spirits and the teachings of demons.’
So yes, demons are real.
But
where did they come from?
Notice what the Scriptures say:
Genesis 6:1, 2:
‘Now, as the population of men grew on the earth and they fathered daughters,
the sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful…
So they took
all whom they chose as their women.
(Notice that these were ‘sons of God,’ but
the women were ‘daughters of men.’)
2 Peter 2:4, 5:
‘God didn’t spare the messengers (angels) that sinned, but threw them into the
dark pits of Tartarus, where they are awaiting His justice… and He didn’t spare
the first arrangement.
Yet He guarded Noah (who was a preacher of
righteousness) along with seven others, when He brought a downpour upon a world
of godless people.’
So according to the Bible, demons are in fact ‘extraterrestrial life forms’ that were created by God (making them His sons) who have chosen a rebellious course of life and have been locked away here on the earth, where they desire to continue to do bad things and to be worshiped.
Therefore, it
appears as though these ‘sons of God’ came to earth and assumed human bodies in
Noah’s day.
However, because they couldn’t be destroyed by the downpour (flood)
and they had forsaken heaven;
They were apparently put into a prison-like state
here on the earth, where they are no longer able to roam.
Understand that demon
is a Greek word that seems to be derived from dia-meno, which means fixed
in one place.
From other Bible accounts about demons, it appears as though
this ‘fixing in one place’ means that they must be associated with either
living or non-living things, which is referred to as ‘possession.’
These are
likely the same ones that are referred to in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and in
the Revelation, as ‘chained demons.’
However, there also
appear to be other demons that are not chained or fixed in one place.
These, as
well as the ‘chained demons,’ are mentioned at Isaiah
34:12-14.
It is interesting
that at Acts 17:18, it is recorded that the Epicureans and Stoic Philosophers
of Greece referred to Paul’s teachings as coming from ‘a foreign demon.’
Although most other Bible translations render these words as ‘foreign god,’ they actually
said ‘demon’ (gr. daimonion).
And notice Paul’s reply as found at Acts
17:22:
‘Men of Athens;
I see that you have a greater fear of the demons than do
others.’
The reason why Paul and others used this
term is obvious:
The many pagan idols and Gods of Athens, although made
of metal and stone, actually had the backing of demons.
And the people
recognized the power that was given to these lifeless objects through
‘possession’ by their gods.
So understand that
there are no such things as the spirits of dead humans that haunt the earth.
For the Bible tells us at Ecclesiastes 9:5:
‘The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all,
nor do they have a reward, since the memory of them is forgotten.’
Note that the most common Greek Septuagint text (referred to as the ‘Septuagint B’)
says that there were seventy of the IsraElite’s ancestors that originally traveled down to Egypt during the terrible famine in the time of JoSeph.
This is in agreement with other Hebrew texts, which consistently say that there were seventy people.
However, the NT text at Acts 7:14 tells us that there were seventy-five of them that did so.
Also, a more ancient Greek text (referred to as the ‘Septuagint A,’
which is damaged and is about to be destroyed, and which was likely used by Luke when writing the Acts)
once again tells us that there were seventy-five people that made the journey.
This is in agreement with the words found in the ‘Septuagint B’ version (which we have used for this Bible) at Genesis 46:27
and at Exodus 1:5, where the accounts say there were seventy five.
Which number is correct?
Well, the counting is tricky and the numbers in the different texts don’t agree.
But fortunately, this minor deviation in numbers will have little effect on our basic understanding of the Bible.
Though the Bible text
that talks about the making of the gold calf in the desert seems to indicate
that this was the personal handiwork of Aaron, the next verse implies that he
had likely authorized someone else (skilled craftsmen) to do the actual work.
For, notice that the account says he didn’t build an Altar to it until after he saw the idol.
So, the
reason why he was spoken of as ‘making’ the calf, was because he was
responsible for building it, and that’s why we have rendered these texts as we
have… to clarify that point.
He likely didn’t have the necessary craftsmanship
skills to do the work.
Also notice that the
calf was supposed to represent Jehovah; so, the people didn’t really think of
themselves as worshiping another god.
They just wanted something that they
could SEE to worship, like the gods they could see in Egypt… ‘memory aids.’
And
since a calf was often the first (and most valuable) sacrifice that they
offered to God, this might have been the reason for the idol being carved into
that shape.
However, remember
that God had already forbidden their making or using idols, and that is why He
was so displeased.
They shouldn’t have needed anything to see as proof that He
was there, because of all the miracles that they had been witnessing, such as
His Bringing them through the Red Sea, or the column of clouds that led them
during the day or the column of fire that was with them during the nights!
Then, why wasn’t
Aaron held more to blame for his part in building the idol?
Apparently, God
still saw some good in Aaron.
Remember that the previous few Chapters in the Exodus told of what God was saying to Moses while he was on the mountain… and though He knew what was going on down below, God still spoke of the honor that was to be shown to Aaron and his sons.
This situation may
be very difficult for many to understand, because of the knowledge that we have
accumulated about God down to this day.
However, what most people don’t realize
is how rudimentary the knowledge and ideas about God must have been at the
time… even for Aaron.
For until they had been delivered from Egypt, there had
been little contact with the true God for four-hundred years!
So the proper
ways of serving Him had likely been forgotten.
And as the result, God had to
start from scratch in building and shaping a nation of worshipers…
And they had
to be taught some very hard lessons along the way, which often resulted in
their deaths, because people had to understand that this was a life-and-death
matter.
Notice too that when
Moses asked,
‘Who is on Jehovah’s side?,’
and he assembled a small army to
slaughter the unfaithful;
‘The Sons of Levi’ (which likely included Aaron and
his family) came to Moses and took their stand for Jehovah.
The words of Exodus
4:24 have long been a source of concern to most Bible students, because what is
said in both the Hebrew and Greek texts is that an angel wanted to kill ‘him’
at an inn.
And since the person mentioned in the preceding verse was Moses, we
could logically conclude that he was the person that the angel was planning to
kill.
Of course, this
scenario is illogical, because God had just commissioned Moses to go to Pharaoh
and demand that His people be set free.
So, why would a messenger from God try
to thwart God’s plans?
The fact that a
specific person isn’t mentioned in this text allows that the ‘him’ spoken of in
the verse wasn’t Moses.
Frequently, the Bible writers used personal pronouns such as
‘him’ without disclosing which person is meant.
And that’s why you will often
find names in brackets [ ] in this Bible…
To clarify the name of the individual
that is being spoken of by the use of a personal pronoun.
Note that in this case,
the person who was spoken of in the following paragraph (in connection
with this event) is Moses’ son.
For there we read that his mother apparently
saved his life by circumcising him on the spot.
Why was this important?
Because
God’s instructions to AbraHam were that all of his male descendants were to be circumcised
on the eighth day after their birth.
And since this obviously hadn’t been done to
Moses’ son; he, by law, was to be put to death (see Genesis 17:14).
So the ‘him’ that was in danger of being killed by God’s messenger was Moses’ son, since God’s Law had been violated by his not being circumcised after birth.
Why hadn’t Moses
circumcised his son?
We don’t know, but the fact that his mother circumcised
him likely indicates that she was the one to blame… and she knew it.
Remember
that her father is described as being ‘the priest of Midian.’
Thus he could
have been a priest to a pagan god.
And if so, this may have been the reason why
she opposed the circumcision of her son.
According to the
Authorized King James Bible, Isaiah 45:7 should be translated as saying:
‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil.’
And this particular translation of God’s words is where some people get the
idea that men have no choice in their destiny.
For if evil comes from God, then
He predestines the outcome for everyone, and we are what we are because it’s
His Will.
But was God really
saying that He is responsible for all that is evil?
You don’t get that
impression if you understand ancient Hebrew Poetry, which is what this is.
For
in classical Hebrew poetry, one statement is made, which is thereafter mirrored
in the statement that follows.
And in this case, note that the second statement
as it is translated it in English doesn’t seem to follow the first.
For the
first part of the statement makes the contrast between the opposites of light
and darkness, while the second seems to speak of two things that are not
thought of as direct opposites, peace and evil.
So, something seems to have
been lost either in the copying or in the translating of this section of the
verse.
What word is the
antonym of peace (gr. eirenen)?
Most would say it is war.
But is war the
only thing that takes away peace?
No, we’re sure you would agree that anything
that is bad and/or unsettling removes peace from our lives.
And this is what we
believe is the point of this verse.
For the Greek word that is translated as evil
(gr. kaka) here doesn’t necessarily mean something that is done for bad
reasons.
Rather, we (and other translators) have consistently translated it as just bad.
But, does this
really make a difference, for isn’t God still saying that He’s responsible for all
that is bad (or evil)?
No! What He’s saying is that whenever He creates
something, this also brings the opposite into existences… it’s the natural law
of action and reaction.
Take for example the
first part of the verse, ‘I prepared light and I made the darkness.’
Understand
that there was no darkness (absence of light) before God created light.
Nor was
there cold (the absence of heat) before He created heat, and there was no
silence before He created sound.
So when He created peace, He also created the
absence of peace, for one can’t exist without the other, since there would be
no frame of reference by which we could measure the absence of something before
it actually exists.
And the point God is making is that EVERYTHING came into
existence through him, for even when he creates good things, the possibility of
the opposite comes into existence.
The Bible tells us
that Jesus and his Apostles ate fermentation-free bread during his Last
Supper, and that they dipped the bread into something that was in a bowl
(or bowels) that ancient Bibles referred to as a sop.
Exactly what was
this sop… was it a gravy?
Actually, it was
likely a mixture of olive oil, herbs, and salt, which has been a favorite
dipping sauce for bread through countless generations (try it sometime, if you
are unfamiliar with it).
We know that it likely wasn’t gravy or meat sauce,
because the lamb was to be sacrificed and then eaten on the following night
(see the link, ‘The Passover and the Lord’s Evening Meal’),
and meat wasn’t normally eaten with every meal in ancient times.
However, the
Bible does tell us that part of the Passover celebration involved the eating of
bitter herbs and bread, and surely salt and olive oil were used to add flavor
and to soften the bread.
History shows us
that ‘the disgusting destroyer’ (gr. bdelugma tes eremoseos) of which
Jesus spoke at Matthew 24:15 and which was prophesied earlier in the book of
Daniel, proved to be the armies of Rome (with their pagan standards or flags)
when they camped around JeruSalem’s walls in the year 66-CE.
For according to EuSebius,
Christians in the city recognized this series of events to be the fulfillment
of Jesus’ prophecy found at Luke 21:21 that foretold JeruSalem’s destruction,
and they heeded the warning to flee from the city when they saw these things
happening.
Then about 3-1/2 years later, in the year 70-CE, ‘all these things’
ended when the Romans returned and totally destroyed JeruSalem, its Temple, and
its priesthood.
The first mention of
dogs as human companions in the Bible is found at Exodus 11:7, where Moses was
promised that in Egypt ‘not even a dog will snarl at a man or an animal.’
So
we must conclude that dogs were kept as companions among them, since they were
likely used to herd their cattle.
The next mention of
dogs in the Bible is when God was giving the IsraElites commandments about what
they could and couldn’t eat.
We find this at Exodus 22:31, which says:
‘And you must be holy [people] to Me, so you must not eat the flesh of wild
animals.
Rather, you should throw it to the dogs.’
So, we know from this account that dogs also traveled with the Hebrews into the desert during their forty-year trek to the Promised Land.
According to
historians, people that lived in Canaan (such as the IsraElites) were possibly
the first to domesticate wolves as dogs and keep them as pets or working
animals;
For the Latin name for dogs, canis, appears to have come from
the term Canaan (referring to the land, not necessarily to the race).
The Greek word that
is used throughout the Bible to describe the great flood of Noah’s Day is cataclysmos
(it’s where we get the English word cataclysm).
However, cataclysmos
doesn’t mean flood. Cata means down and clysmos means pour.
So the word is correctly translated as Downpour herein.
The word dragon is found several times throughout
the Greek texts of the Bible.
It is actually a Greek word (drakonta) that has basically been
Anglicized.
Note that dragons are thought of as animals with the bodies of
snakes (gr. orphis), but they also have feet and legs.
However, the many
ways that the Greek term dragon and its apparent Hebrew counterparts (leviathan
or behemoth) are used in the Bible seem to indicate some sort of
fearsome wild beast.
What was the
original dragon?
It’s an interesting fact that the answer to this question
would still be open to debate were it not for the explanation that we find at
Revelation 12:9, which tells us:
‘So, the huge dragon was thrown out.
He is the first snake, the one that is
called the Slanderer and Opposer, who is misleading the whole earth.’
As you can see, this last book in the Bible clarifies the mystery of who the original ‘snake’ or ‘dragon’ that seduced Eve in the ‘Paradise of Delights’ (see Genesis 3:2) really was.
That the dragon is viewed
as a snake with legs in religious legends throughout the world, testifies to
the fact that people everywhere once believed in the Bible account in Genesis.
And they also believed that when God cursed the snake to ‘travel on its chest
and belly,’ it lost its legs.
The fact that the
Bible speaks about what is translated as dragons several times raises
some interesting questions.
For the dragon, although supposedly a mythical
animal, is one of the world’s most widely recognized creatures.
It is highly regarded
in the Buddhist religion and it can be seen in ancient religious carvings from
around the world.
This testifies to the fact that people have believed in the
existence of dragons for as far back as human records go.
Also note
that dragons are also part of the folklore of Europe, for who hasn’t heard the
story of St. George and the Dragon?
Yet, if you are familiar with that story,
you’ll see that it is actually an allegory about man’s fight against sin and
the Slanderer.
So in that case, it also refers to the original dragon, who was
the first creature of terror.
Notice that faithful
Job once asked the question (at Job 7:12):
‘Am I the sea or the dragon that guards it?’
This view that a dragon guarded the edges of the seas was common throughout Europe until after the Fifteenth Century, for dragons were usually drawn at the edges of maps of seas during that time.
Also notice that
there is an entire Chapter in Job (Chapter 41) that
is obviously a description of the dragon, who is clearly identified there as
the evil one.
However, the meanings of the words have been misunderstood by
copyists, translators, and commentators alike due to the fact that the Hebrew
text uses different words (since it is a different language).
For Hebrew-based
Bibles speak of a leviathan or a behemoth in the Book of Job.
And
it is also calls it, the crooked serpent.
So, while it’s a
fact that nowhere in the Septuagint text of Job 41 do we actually find the word
‘dragon;’
You can see that verses 18-21 are obviously talking about such a
creature.
For it says there:
‘His sneezing brings
about brightness
And his eyes are like morning stars.
From out of his mouth comes burning lamps,
Like the scattered coals of a fire.
From his nostrils comes the smoke of a furnace,
Burning with the fire of live coals.
For his soul is much like live coals,
And flames shoot out of his mouth.’
Then notice the further description in verses 31, 32:
‘He breaks from the
abyss as though a brass pot;
He thinks of the seas as his own ointment jar,
And the abyss of Tartarus as his captive;
For to him, the abyss is just a promenade.
There’s nothing on earth that’s quite like him;
For he was made to be mocked by My angels.’
So, what is God
talking about here?
Well, some Bible critics dismiss the account of Job
altogether, claiming that it is Bible mythology, while others say that God was
just describing a wild ox.
However, if you examine these verses carefully,
you’ll see that God was using cryptic text to explain to Job just who was to
blame for the problems he had been experiencing.
Notice that the use
of the word Tartarus in the Greek text (the place
where evil gods are sent) in these verses provides us a clue to who is being
spoken of, since the term isn’t found again in the Bible until the reference at
2 Peter 2:4;
And the only mention of his
coming out of his prison (pit or abyss) is found at Revelation 20:7.
But of course, since Tartarus
is a Greek word, the Hebrew text of these verses refers to that place as ‘the
white-haired deep.’
Nevertheless, you’ll find that this second-to-the-last Chapter in Job (as in any good writing), is really bringing back all the characters that the book started out with in the first chapter, God, the Evil One, and Job.
Then, why did Jewish
scribes and translators have so much trouble understanding the meaning of the
words here that there are some obvious deletions in the texts?
There are four
likely reasons:
1. They didn’t believe in fire-breathing dragons
2. They didn’t know that the Slanderer was the dragon
3. They didn’t know of the Slanderer’s position in Tartarus or the pit (or ‘the deep’)
4. The correct understanding would have linked the Book of Job to the NT Scriptures that were written later by Christians.
It is interesting
that we also find mention of a dragon in the Greek text of Isaiah 27:1.
For
there we read:
‘In that day, He will bring His great holy sword
Against the dragon (the crooked fleeing snake),
And He will destroy that beast of the sea.’
Notice that this is
an obvious reference to the destruction of the same dragon mentioned at
Revelation 12:9.
However, this link generally goes unnoticed, because the
Hebrew-based texts use the word leviathan.
And we only come to realize
that dragon is the Greek word for leviathan if we compare the
Greek Septuagint text to the Masoretic text, which most modern scholars refuse
to do.
What is particularly interesting about this scripture is that it speaks of the dragon from the sea in the same words as are found at Ezekiel 32:2, where the reference is obviously to the land of Egypt and to its destruction.
And you will also
find references to the land of Egypt in the song that precedes Isaiah Chapter
27.
So, there does seem to be a cryptic connection the dragon, the sea, and the
land of Egypt.
Notice that this
song (as found at Isaiah 26:19-21), which precedes the discussion of the dragon,
seems to speak of some future time when God’s people will be released from a
symbolic Egypt after an Armageddon-like battle;
For notice the rest of the words of the prophecy, which say:
‘We will not fall,
though others will fall.
But the dead will be raised from their tombs,
And all on the earth will be joyful.
For as dew, You’ll send them a cure,
While the lands of the godless will fall.
‘So proceed, O my
people, to enter your bedrooms…
Go inside and lock all your doors,
Then hide in there for a while!
Because this will happen, then that;
And the rage of Jehovah will pass.
‘{Look!} From His
Holy Place, Jehovah sends rage
Upon those that live in the lands.
Then the ground won’t cover all of the blood,
Nor [the bodies] of those He destroys.’
Therefore, Egypt seems to be used here as a symbol of the godless nations that are destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:16), and the dragon that represents them appears to be the Opposer (Devil or Satan).
At Revelation 12:9 we read:
‘He (the dragon) was thrown down to the earth along with his messengers.
In Greek, the word
that we have translated as messengers is aggeloi (angels).
So, as
God and Jesus have their ‘messengers,’ it appears as though the ‘Dragon’ also
has his.
How many?
Revelation 12:4 says that ‘he drags a third of the stars of
heaven.’
Thus it appears as though the dragon has great (but limited) success
in drawing followers from among the ‘angels’ in the heavens.
Are these messengers
or angels also ‘demons?’
No, for demon (gr. diameno) appears to mean fixed
in one place, which describes the ‘sons of God’ who apparently came to
earth and assumed human bodies in Noah’s day (see the Note above, Demons).
And because they had forsaken heaven, these
‘demons’ were put into a prison-like state here on the earth during and after
the (Great) Downpour.
And from other Bible accounts about demons, it appears as
though this ‘fixing in one place’ means that they must be associated with
either living or non-living things, which is referred to as ‘possession.’
These
appear to be the same ones that are referred to in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and
in the Revelation, as ‘chained demons.’
Yet, there also
appear to be a huge number of other followers of the Evil One that are not chained or fixed in
one place.
These, as well as the ‘chained demons,’ are mentioned at Isaiah 34:12-14.
Notice that the
Dragon’s ‘messengers,’ which John saw and described in the Revelation, appear
to still have access to the heavens until they eventually lose the battle there
in ‘the Lord’s Day.’
But after that, they will be thrown down to the earth…
though there is no indication that they become fixed to objects or people.
So,
this may be the reason why the Revelation refers to some of these followers as
‘messengers’ or ‘angels,’ not as demons.
But, why would ‘a
third’ of God’s heavenly messengers choose to follow the dragon in rebellion?
Well, while the Bible deals with the extent of the earthly rebellion against
God, one can only imagine the full extent of the rebellion that is raging
throughout our universe.
However, a glimpse into the type of offer that the
Slanderer might have made to seduce them into following him can be seen by the
offer that he made to Jesus after his 40-day stay in the desert after his
baptism.
Luke 4:6 tells us:
‘Then the Slanderer said:
I’ll give you power over all of these and the
glory of them, because they have been given to me and I can give them to
whomever I wish.’
So from this, we can
see that the Slanderer now has power over all the governments of the world
(also see Revelation 13:7).
And apparently,
he has offered heavenly messengers their own worldly governments, empires, and
religions (worshipers) if they should choose to follow him.
At 2 Corinthians
2:17, it is recorded that Paul wrote:
‘We aren’t like others that are peddlers of the word of God (gr. kapeleuontes
ton logon tou Theou).
Rather, we speak sincerely through the Anointed One.’
Obviously, Paul is
making the assertion here that he didn’t believe in making a comfortable living
by preaching God’s Word.
In fact, Paul boasted of his working as a tent maker
so he could provide God’s Word without cost to the congregations.
And as he
says here, he often did without, simply because he refused to ask for help.
However, it must be
admitted that on other occasions, Paul spoke of his ‘authority’ to be supported
in his preaching…
Proving that receiving
such material support isn’t necessarily wrong.
But let us examine why
Paul chose not to depend on others to support him in his service to God.
Notice
his reasoning:
‘Rather, we speak sincerely through the Anointed One.’
And the obvious
problem with trying to teach those that pay us to do so, is this matter of
sincerity.
For if one’s livelihood depends on the goodwill of his/her
listeners, there may be a reluctance to say what needs to be said.
At Jesus’ ‘Last
Supper,’ which fell on the first day of the Jewish celebration of the Passover,
he instituted a ritual that he told his Apostles to continue to do in memory of
him and of his death.
For at Luke 22:19, 20, we read:
‘Then he took a loaf [of bread], gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them,
saying,
This is my body, which is being handed over for you.
Keep on doing
this in memory of me.
And he did the same thing with the cup after supper,
saying,
This cup is the New Sacred Agreement of my blood, which is being
poured out for you.’
So, following Jesus’
instructions, partaking of Jesus’ ‘flesh and blood’ symbolizes that those that
do so are expressing their desire to become part of him, or as the scriptures
literally read, to be ‘in’ (gr. en) him.
And now that science has given
us a better understanding of what DNA does, perhaps we can more fully
appreciate the meaning of what taking in a perfect DNA can mean for our lives.
You might also
consider the meaning of the particular day that Jesus chose to memorialize his
death, the first day of the seven-day Passover festival.
For, not only did he
die on that same day (the Jewish days start at sunset and end at sunset), but
the purpose for observing the Passover was to remember that God had once spared the
lives of all the IsraElite firstborn from the angel that passed through the
land of Egypt to destroy the firstborn in that land.
And this was to be
remembered by sacrificing a lamb on the first day, then eating it that evening
(on the second day of Passover), every year thereafter.
Also, since this one
act of salvation was the beginning of IsraEl’s relationship with God, those that
partook of the sacrifices were indicating that they were agreeing to be His
people and to be party to His Sacred Agreement with them.
And in the same way,
when we partake of the bread and wine that pictures Jesus’ flesh and blood,
this means that we are also beginning a relationship with God and Jesus under
the New Sacred Agreement that they have provided for our salvation.
Notice that when he was speaking
ahead of time concerning this coming event, Jesus said to a large crowd of
followers (at John 6:53-56):
‘I tell you the truth; if you don’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
his blood, you won’t have life in yourselves.
For, those that chew my flesh and
drink my blood will have age-long life, because I will resurrect them on the
Last Day.
Since my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink, those who
chew on my flesh and drink my blood will remain in me, and I in them.’
(For more information on this, see the linked document, ‘The
Passover and the Lord’s Evening Meal’).
Of course, as you
can see;
The modern religious custom of remembering Jesus’ death by putting palm
ashes on the foreheads of Christians on ‘Good Friday,’ and celebrating his
resurrection on ‘Easter Sunday’ (named after the ancient pagan Goddess Ishtar)
doesn’t come close to the symbolic times or methods that Jesus chose for
remembering his death as a human.
And why is all of
this so important?
As Jesus told us:
We must ‘eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood’ if we wish to be resurrected on the Last Day,
For more
information, see the linked document, ‘The New
Covenant.’
It would be foolish
to attempt to draw conclusions as to whether animals killed and ate meat before
the time of Adam.
But if they did, apparently that wasn’t God’s purpose thereafter.
For notice what He said, as recorded at Genesis 1:30:
‘[I have given]
greenish-yellow plants as food to all the earth’s wild animals, all the winged
creatures of the sky, and all the slithering animals that crawl on the ground
and have life’s breath.’
And after that, with the
commission that was given to Adam (at Genesis 1:28), we can see that the situation
was to change for all the animals on the earth, because he was told that they
were to obey him.
For notice that God told Adam that he was to:
‘Rule over the fish of the seas, the winged creatures of the skies, all the
herding animals of the ground, all the slithering animals that crawl on the
ground, and the whole earth.’
So it appears as
though it was God’s purpose for humans to make the entire earth a peaceful
place where none would ‘harm or destroy.’
However, this perfect purpose appears
to have ended (at least for the time being) with Adam’s rebellion in the
Paradise.
Also notice that
from the start, God’s instructions to Adam appear to have been that both he and
the animals were to only eat vegetation.
For at Genesis 1:29, it is recorded
that God said:
‘Look, I have given you all the seed-bearing plants for planting that are on
the entire earth, as well as all the seed-bearing trees for planting, as your
food.’
Then after the
rebellion, notice that He told Adam (at Genesis 3:18):
‘Briars and thistles will grow for you, and your food will be the grasses in
the fields.’
So the texts appear to indicate that both the men and the animals were to be vegetarians.
Thereafter, we don’t
know for sure what men people really ate, but they likely did eat animals after
they were expelled from the paradise.
For the fact that Abel (the one that God
found to be righteous) was a herder of animals, would suggest this… remember
that Cain was the gardener while Abel was the herdsman.
Therefore, we must assume
that the practice of eating animals was not condemned by God.
Then after the
Downpour, God’s instructions to men had clearly changed from what He said in
His instructions to Adam in the Garden, likely in recognition of what men were
actually doing.
For from that point on, He said that men could eat any sort of
animal.
However, notice that
prior to the Downpour (Flood), people must have already drawn some sort of line
for themselves as to which animals were considered clean enough to eat and
which were unclean (inedible).
For God’s instructions to Noah about the types
of animals that were to be brought into the Chest mentioned both types, the
‘clean’ (such as cattle) and the ‘unclean,’ which was probably based on each
animal’s diet and habits.
And thereafter, only the IsraElites were given the
dietary restrictions to eat just ‘clean’ animals in their Law (which came some 1700 years later).
However, the fact
that this arrangement of eating animals didn’t really please God, appears to be
indicated by the tone of the words in His instructions to Noah when He was
telling him that they could eat the animals.
Notice what He said at Genesis
9:3:
‘All living and slithering animals may serve as meat for you.
I’ve given them
all to you as though they were green vegetation.’
There was just one
restriction that God gave them when it came to eating meat (something that is
commonly disregarded by many people today):
They were told that they were not
to eat the blood, which God indicated is the source of the animal’s life.
Pouring the animal’s lifeblood out (as a symbolic sacrifice) seems to indicate
that the permission for men to eat animals was something that was temporary,
and pouring out the blood is the way for us to acknowledge the sacredness of
all life.
But if God considered the lives of the animals to be so important, then why did He create laws that required the IsraElites to offer animal sacrifices to Him on a daily basis?
Well, it appears as
though sacrificing animals wasn’t His idea.
For notice what God Himself said
concerning this at Jeremiah 7:21-23:
‘Gather up all
your burnt-offerings,
As well as your other sacrifices,
Then go on and just eat all the meats!
‘For, on the day
that I led them from Egypt,
I didn’t ask your fathers to
offer such things…
I didn’t really tell them to bring Me
Whole burnt offerings or other sacrifices.
So, although the Old
Law did require the sacrifices of living animals;
In view of what God said as
quoted above, we would have to assume that such instructions were given to the
IsraElites as a concession to their views as to how they chose to worship Him.
At Matthew 15:2, we read of how Jesus’ Apostles
(and likely Jesus himself) hadn’t washed their hands before eating (as was the
custom in JeruSalem), and the Pharisees were objecting to this.
However, what
were they really objecting to?
It has often been
preached that the Pharisees were complaining that Jesus and his Apostles hadn’t
performed a ‘ritual washing’ (to the elbows).
Yet, the words in the parallel
account at Mark 7:2 clearly show that this isn’t
what the Pharisees were saying.
Notice how this verse reads:
‘Kai idontes tinas ton matheton autou hoti koinais chersin taut estin
aniptois esthiousin tous artous,’
or,
‘And having/seen some of disciples of/him as/great with/unclean hands this
being unwashed eating the bread.’
Note that their
hands were described as being ‘koinais’ (meaning ‘unclean‘ or ‘dirty’) and
‘aniptois’ (unwashed).
So
according to the text, the Pharisees considered the hands of Jesus and his
Apostles to be dirty, simply because they hadn’t washed them before eating.
As
you can see, there is no indication that they required some sort of ‘ritual
washing.’
Understand that the
Pharisees were teaching the people that lived in JeruSalem and the Province of
Judea that they had to wash their hands vigorously (scrubbing them) before
eating a meal.
And yes, it was partly a religious thing, which was based on the
rabbinic teaching that they should be a clean people.
However, that wasn’t the end
of the matter.
You might notice
that (at Mark 7:4, 5) the Pharisees were also teaching the people (as part of
the ‘ritual’) to ‘rinse’ the vegetables that they bought in the markets and to
‘soak’ (or ‘wash’) their dishes… which sounds like just a good idea.
However,
apparently such customs weren’t as strictly followed by Galileans back then
(Jesus and eleven of his Apostles were from Galilee).
And the point that we
want to get from this is that Jesus wasn’t against washing his hands before
eating, or washing vegetables before eating them, or against washing dishes.
Rather, he was saying that God doesn’t require that we do such things.
So,
notice what Jesus went on to say about the matter, as found at Matthew 15:20:
‘Eating with unwashed hands doesn’t dirty a man.’
Of course, Jesus
wasn’t really telling us that we should eat without washing our hands.
For as
the Son of God, he knew that disease and infection could be spread by allowing
us to get too dirty.
But as the text goes on to indicate;
What he was concerned
with here is something that was far more important!
For what the Pharisees were
doing was taking what they considered to be righteous principles and turning
them into laws that they required others to observe as ‘tradition,’ but which
went beyond what God required in His Laws.
So they were promoting their own
personal opinions as laws, and some of these opinions or laws even allowed for people to show
disregard for their parents.
His point?
Christians shouldn’t be making up their own rules for others to follow!
As Paul
wrote:
‘Don’t go beyond the things that are written.’
For more information, see the linked document, ‘God’s
Laws and Principles.’
Was there really a
Garden of Eden?
And if so, where was it located?
Actually, the
Septuagint version of the OT text says this at Genesis 2:8:
‘God planted a Paradise on the east side of Edem, where He put the man whom he
had formed.’
Then in verses 10-14 we read:
‘A river flowed from Edem to water the Paradise, and from there [came the] head
[waters] of four [rivers].
The name of the [first river] is Phison.
It circles
the entire land of Evilat, where there is gold (and the gold from that land is
good), as well as coal and ornamental stone.
The name of the second river is
Geon.
It runs around the land of Kush.
The third river is the Tigris.
It flows over
toward the Assyrians.
The fourth river is the EuPhrates.’
As you can see;
According to the Septuagint, the Garden wasn’t named Eden, it was just called
‘the Paradise’ or ‘the Walled Garden’ (from the word’s old Iranian roots), and
it was also called ‘the Paradise of Delights,’ at Genesis 2:15.
So, where did Eden
come in?
Notice that the Septuagint account tells us that the Garden was
located along the east side of ‘the land of Edem.’
Therefore, the garden wasn’t
named Eden (or Edem).
Rather, it was located next to a land of that name.
But, which spelling
is correct, Eden or Edem?
We don’t know, for we frequently find the
letters M and N interchanged in Bible names in the ancient texts.
But don’t confuse this name (Ed-em) with Edom (Ed-om), although they both
have similar meanings and may have once been pronounced the same.
For Edom is
the name of the land that belonged to the family line of IsaAc’s son Esau, and
Edem or Eden is the name of a land east of that, which was next to the garden
that we commonly call Eden today.
And where was that?
It’s important to
notice that when Moses wrote this first portion of Genesis, he used the names
of places and countries that existed in his day to describe where they had once
been.
For at Genesis 2:14 he tells us that the Tigris river ‘flows over toward
the Assyrians.’
And since there was no nation of Assyria before the Downpour,
we must assume that he was describing the place where it was located in his
day, which was somewhere north of the ancient land of Assyria…
For the Tigris
River was described as flowing from Edem into Assyria.
So then, was there
really a land of Edem that existed north of Assyria in the time of Moses?
Yes,
for there was a people called the Sons of Edem that are mentioned in other
scriptures.
Notice, for example, that at 2
Kings 19:12 (4 Kings 19:12 Sept.), we read that when the Assyrians were
taunting the people of JeruSalem by bragging about the cities they had already
conquered, they spoke of their conquest of the Sons of Edem at ‘ThaEsthen’
(‘Tel Assar’ in the Hebrew text), which almost all modern references cite as
being ‘a country annexed to Assyria.’
Therefore, the land
of Edem (or Eden) was likely north of where most people think of it as being
today (in southern Iraq).
For, that’s where you’ll find the headwaters of the
Tigris, EuPhrates, and two other rivers, the Geon (probably the Gihon or the Gaihun-Aras)
and the Phison (likely the Pishon,
which is now known as the Sefid-Rud, or Long Red River), since they have
similar names today.
So, as several modern researchers have concluded;
The Garden
was probably located to the southwest of Mt. Ararat near the modern city of Tabriz in Azerbaijan.
It’s also important
to note that the Bible account tells us that the headwaters of these rivers all
started in the area of the land of Edem (not in the Garden).
Yet, if the garden
had been (as most sources say) near Babylon;
A geographical map shows that the
headwaters of these rivers have never started that far south in what is now a
desert.
For, as with many rivers, the source is often found in the mountainous
regions, such as near Mt. Ararat.
And notice that this area is still called Eden today
by the local tribes.
Then, was there ever a
man named Edem from whom the land at the foot of Mt. Ararat derives its name?
That is likely, but since Edem appears to mean red earth, the term the
sons of Edem could also mean the sons of the red earth after the
bright red ochre soil that is found near Tabriz.
And notice that;
Since the name Adam also
seems to mean Red Earth, it could be that the red soil from that area (SW of
Ararat) was the dust of the ground from which Adam was made.
Another thing to
note is that according to Genesis 10:7, one of
the descendants of Noah’s son Kush (a dark-skinned race of people) was named
Evilat, which is the name of the land around which the Phison flowed (see Genesis 2:11)…
Yes, it’s where the account says
that gold and other valuable minerals could be found.
Also, the Hebrew
(Masoretic) text says that the Geon River ran around ‘the entire land of Kush’
(it was originally spelled with a K not a C).
So, according to the Genesis
account, the dark-skinned Kushites once lived in this area north of Assyria.
For the Bible tells us that Kush’s son Nimrod founded many cities in Iran and
Iraq.
But is there any historical proof that this is so?
Notice that the book
‘A History of All Nations from Earliest Times’ by John Henry Wright speaks of a
dark-skinned race that once lived along the Black Sea coast in Northern
Assyria, whom the Greeks called ‘Ethiopians’ – Black People.
This is found in
the second paragraph under the heading, ‘Medes
and Persians.’
And there we read that these people were thereafter
relocated southeast and became the Indians (modern Brahui).
That this is likely
true can be seen from the newest maps of migrations
as proven by genetics.
For if you follow the ‘L’ (Indian) genetic branch
backward, you’ll see that it returns to the area of modern Persia, as the Bible
account in Genesis indicates.
Then, why don’t these people
still live in that land today?
Because, as was common among all the races that
were conquered by the Assyrians, they were displaced to other areas within the vast
Assyrian empire (as were the ‘lost’ ten tribes of IsraEl,
by the way).
And notice that the people who live in the country that we call
Ethiopia today still refer to themselves as ‘the Kingdom of Kush.’
So, they are apparently close relatives to the black or dark-skinned people
that once inhabited the area around ancient Edem or Eden.
The account found at Genesis Chapter 47, where JoSeph purchased all of the Egyptian people’s land for Pharaoh with grain, provides us an interesting insight into the history of governmental power to tax its residents and to own the land (eminent domain).
From this unique
historical source (the Bible), we can see that governmental power and taxation
wasn’t necessarily common in early Egypt.
But notice that the things that started there
were very important, since this country was in fact the first great
world power.
So, it became the source of information about how governments
were to be subsidized to all future generations.
Apparently, prior to
that time, governmental taxation of an entire population was unknown.
So, kings
may have derived their funds by coercing merchants or rich landowners… or by
war.
However, under JoSeph’s inspired direction (and God’s permitting the
famine), this first major government of history could legally claim the right
to own the land and to tax the people.
And while most archeologists and
scholars deny the existence of JoSeph (as well as a long line of other major
Bible people and events);
No one can deny the effects of the laws he passed, on world
history.
Then, can we say that
God is responsible for governmental taxation?
Yes, for notice what Romans 13:6,
7 tells us:
‘This is why you pay taxes;
Because, as public servants, they are serving God’s
purposes.
So, pay everyone what they are owed; to the tax assessor, the
property tax; to the toll collector, the toll; give the police fear, and honor
those [who require] honor.’
It is also
interesting that this early decision affected the religious clerics of the time.
For under Joseph’s direction, they paid no taxes on the property they owned…
Which is again similar to modern laws.
So, the conclusion we reach is that governmental power and taxation are things that God created for our benefit, and that He also considered it necessary to remove religion from the influence of and taxation by governments.
The parallels to
these ancient laws of God can still be seen in modern governments, where they
claim the right to confiscate, purchase, or own all land within their domain (eminent
domain).
Also, national taxation is about the same as it was in Egypt under
JoSeph, twenty percent, and religious organizations and their clerics
aren’t taxed on income from their religious duties.
The term overseer
implies a misleading nuance in American English… but it’s still the best word
to use.
The Greek word that overseer is translated from is epi-scopos,
which literally means on-looker (not as a person who is ‘over’ anyone).
So the term doesn’t imply a higher position, but that of a caretaker.
That
Christian overseers should not view themselves as being ‘over’ or ‘higher than’
the congregation is specifically warned against by Jesus, who said (as recorded
at Matthew 23:10, 11):
‘Nor should you be called leaders, for you have but one Leader, the Anointed One.
However, the greatest among you must be your servant.’
We can clearly see
that the position of overseer was never meant to be one of domination over the
called ones or the congregation from the words of Peter.
For he wrote (at 1
Peter 5:3):
‘Don’t [set yourselves up as] rulers over those that have been entrusted to your
care, but become examples to the flock.’
A synonym that is
used almost interchangeably in the Bible for ‘overseer’ is ‘elder’ (presbyterios
– older man).
And from this we learn that Christian elders may have always been
males, and their job was to shepherd and teach the congregation.
Another more
modern English word for overseer is bishop, which is a corruption of the
Greek word episcopos.
Each of the early
Christian congregations may have had many older men that took the lead, taught,
and watched over the flock.
But the Scriptures show that to be given such a
designation, they had to meet high standards of conduct and reputation.
Also,
though Paul doesn’t mention this specifically in his list of qualifications,
we know that elders had to be people that could make wise decisions and showed
signs of having God’s Breath, since this was the first qualification of all
Servants in the Christian Congregation.
We can see this from the words at Acts
6:3 (where the first ‘servants’ were appointed), which says:
‘So brothers;
Find seven qualified men among you that are filled with wisdom and
the Breath [of God].’
But, shouldn’t a
person that may not be known as wise eventually be appointed an overseer just
because of his years of faithful service?
If you read the Proverbs, you’ll
repeatedly see the need to appoint just those that have proven themselves to be
wise judges and councilors.
For Solomon wrote (at Proverbs 22:29):
‘An observant man that is sharp in his ways
Will also stand beside kings…
He won’t stand beside the dull witted.’
Notice the list of
qualifications that Paul gave Timothy to look for in a man before appointing
him to serve as an elder in the Christian Congregation, as recorded at 1 Timothy
3:2-7.
He said that the candidate must be someone who…
· Has not been charged [with misconduct] (gr. anepilepton)
· Is a one-woman man (gr. mias one gynaikos woman aner man)
· Is moderate in his habits
· Is sensible (wise)
· Is friendly to strangers (hospitable)
· Is a (qualified) teacher
· Is not a drunk
· Isn’t headstrong
· Isn’t quarrelsome
· Isn’t a greedy person
· Is someone that takes the lead in his family
· Has children that obey him seriously
· Isn’t a newly converted man
· Is someone that is well spoken of by those outside the congregation.
And thereafter, such
a person should follow the course that was set out by Peter, who wrote at 1
Peter 5:1-4:
‘I encourage the elders among you (my fellow elders and witnesses of the sufferings
of the Anointed One who will share in the glory that’s soon to be revealed) to
shepherd the flock of God that has been entrusted to you.
Don’t do this because
you have to, but because you want to!
Don’t do it to make a lot of money, but
because you want to help!
And don’t [set yourselves up as] rulers over those
that have been entrusted to your care, but become examples to the flock.
Then
when the Chief Shepherd is revealed, you will walk away with the enduring
garland of glory!’
(For more information, see the linked document, ‘Arrangement
of the First Christian Churches.’)
At Exodus 28:41 (in
the Septuagint), we read the following instructions of God when He was talking
to Moses about the special garments that were to be worn by those that served as
the Holy Priests of IsraEl:
‘You must put them upon your brother Aaron and his sons, then anoint them and
empower their hands.
Make them Holy, so that they can officiate as Priests
before Me.’
In Greek, the
highlighted words are, kai empleseis auton tas cheiras, or, and fill
of them the hands.
So we have concluded that the verses are saying that
Aaron and his sons were to undergo some sort of empowerment ceremony following
their anointing.
Although
self-righteous people often make up their own rules when it comes to proper
sexual thoughts and conduct between men and women, the Song of Solomon is
filled with words that openly describe sexual desires that seem to imply acts
that many today would consider to be lewd and ‘unchristian.’
(For more information, see the linked document, ‘Christian
Morality.’)
Esther is the Hellenized
(Greek) pronunciation of the (possibly Median) name HadasShah.
She was the wife
of ArtaXerxes I, likely known as Damasphia.
There seems to be a
contradiction between the Hebrew and Greek texts over the name of the first
woman.
In fact, there is even an apparent contradiction between the Greek
texts, because she is referred to as Life (Greek: Zoe – pronounced
zoe-ay) at Genesis 3:20, but as Eue or Euan (pronounced Eu-weh or
Eu-wan) at Genesis 4:25.
However, there is no contradiction, just a difference
in languages.
The Greek word found at Genesis 3:21 (Zoe) means Life, and
the Hebrew word found at Genesis 4:1, חַוָּ֣ה, or, H’Hawah (pronounced ‘Eve’ in
English) also means Life.
So, the reason for the difference in the
Septuagint is that it gives both the Greek and Hebrew pronunciation of the
name.
We understand that
it may be difficult for some to understand how H’hawah came to be
pronounced as Eve in English, but this is likely a later corruption of
the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name (Eue), because the Greek letter u
looks like a v (ευαν).
So her English name
should be Life, but Eve has become the common mispronunciation.
When we hear the
word eunuch, we usually think of a man that has been castrated, because
that’s what the term has come to mean through the years.
However, when someone
is described as a eunuch in the Bible, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he was
sexually mutilated.
In fact, during the reigns of faithful kings of IsraEl,
such mutilation would have been considered repulsive;
For a sexually-mutilated
person, by Law, couldn’t serve as a Priest or worship at the Temple of Jehovah.
Does this mean that
God dislikes men whose testicles have been forcibly or accidentally removed?
No, surely the reason why God created this law was because He knew that some
men, in their desire to better serve Him, may have considered castrating
themselves in order to remove any carnal desires…
And He clearly didn’t want
that to happen.
So God gave them a law that disallowed religious participation
by any that were castrated.
But, notice that the
Greek word eunuch doesn’t really carry the meaning of castration.
Rather, it means bed keeper.
Nevertheless, most bed keepers (or harem watchers)
for kings were in fact castrated to keep them from temptation.
Yet, eunuchs are
frequently mentioned in the Bible as holding other offices (take the Ethiopian
Eunuch as an example) that didn’t necessarily require castration.
So, why were
men that didn’t watch over harems later referred to as bed keepers?
Because the
term had come under common use to apply to all of the most-trusted servants of
kings.
You might notice, for example, that Potiphar (the Egyptian man to whom JoSeph was sold) was referred to as a eunuch (gr. Eunouchos) of Pharaoh at Genesis 39:1, though the account tells us that he was a married man who had sired children.
But, was DaniEl (who
served under the chief Babylonian eunuch) in fact a eunuch?
His position as a
special servant to the king would indicate that he held such a title.
Then, is it
possible that he had been castrated?
Well, since he was an early captive from
JeruSalem, he was likely a member of its nobility or royalty;
And notice what
the prophecy that God gave to King HezekiAh (at Isaiah 39:7) says about this:
‘They will take your children – those whom you have fathered – and make them
eunuchs in the houses of the Babylonians.’
In the above case,
the Greek word that we have translated as eunuchs is castrati
(one that has been sexually mutilated).
And the fact that there is no mention of
DaniEl having a wife or children, and that none of his descendants are listed
among those that returned to JeruSalem, makes this a possible conclusion.
The account at Acts
16:30-32 tells the story of a jailer that had just witnessed a miracle.
And
after that, he asked Paul and Silas:
‘Lords; What must I do to get saved?’
Their reply was:
‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your household will be saved.’
Then, according
to some Greek texts, the account goes on to say:
‘They spoke to him and all those in his house about the Word of God’ (or as
some Greek texts say, ‘the
word of the Lord‘)
So from these words,
many have concluded that faith in Jesus is all that a person requires to be
‘saved.’
However, those who reason this way seem to overlook the rest of the Bible’s
instructions.
For example;
Shouldn’t an accurate understanding of God’s ways
and laws also be required?
If this weren’t true, then Paul and Silas wouldn’t
have bothered to go on and teach this man and his household about ‘the word of
God’ or ‘of the Lord’.
Jesus’ half-brother
James also wrote about this matter, and he showed that more than faith is
required to be pleasing to God.
For notice what he wrote at James 2:14:
‘What good does it do, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but isn’t
moved to do anything about it?
Can such faith save him?’
He then answers this question at James 2:17:
‘So, faith without [good] deeds is dead.’
And what type of
faithful action was James saying was necessary to make ours a living faith?
He
spoke of the need to be willing to help our brothers when they lack the
necessities of life, to be fair, to be forgiving, and to live clean, honest
lives.
Then he concluded (at James 2:24):
‘So, just as a body that isn’t breathing is dead, faith without [good] deeds is
dead.’
At Galatians 2:4,
Paul wrote about problems that he had with ‘false brothers’ (gr. pseudo
adelphoi) with whom he had to deal on his second visit to JeruSalem.
These
may have been the same ones that he mentioned at 2 Corinthians 11:26 when he
was talking about the many dangers that he had faced as an Apostle…
And this
was apparently one of the most treacherous.
That such men were
likely considered to be in good standing by others in the congregation in
JeruSalem is substantiated by the fact that they met with Paul in the presence
of what appeared to be the leading ones of the congregation there, specifically
James, Peter, and John.
And the fact that there were many Jewish Christians who
looked down on and opposed Paul, is discussed under the Wikipedia topic, Ebionites.
What was so
treacherous about these men that Paul listed his encounter with them along with
his being stoned, beaten, and left for dead?
He wrote that they ‘looked down on
the freedom we have in the Anointed Jesus, and they wanted to make us their
slaves.’
In other words;
They
were making accusations against Paul and trying to override the commission that
he had received directly from Jesus in a vision.
So they were in fact
resisting and opposing God’s Holy Breath.
Clearly, some of
those in the First Century congregation in JeruSalem didn’t like Paul or the
work that he was doing, and they were giving him orders about how he should
conduct himself, to whom he should preach, how he should preach, and what he
should say;
For they would have loved to bring an end to Paul’s commission to
preach to the gentiles.
So their obvious
lack of love for Paul and their high regard for their own opinions (which were
pro-Judaism) led to disqualifying them as Paul’s ‘brothers’…
Though it’s
interesting that there is no mention of their being corrected by anyone at the
time.
In fact, it was due to his trying to please such ‘false brothers’ (as
James suggested that he should do by observing needless Jewish cleansing
rituals) that Paul ended up being mobbed, beaten, arrested, and later sent to
Rome to stand trial before Emperor Nero.
Note that these
‘brothers’ had actually accused Paul of teaching an ‘apostasy’ (see Acts 21:21)…
Which is interesting, because this is
the only Bible record of a Christian ever being accused of such a thing in
those exact words.
The Greek word for respect
(or value) is temer, while the Greek word for fear is phobou
(as in phobia).
Yet at Ephesians 5:33 (for example), phobou is often
incorrectly translated as respect in some Bibles, where the text is talking
about the feelings that Christian wives should have for their husbands.
This is
likely an effort on the part of some to make the Bible more ‘politically
correct;’
Because, the same word, when speaking to slaves in the text that
follows, is usually translated as fear.
What type of fear
does the Bible mean?
Well, phobou is used in other
places to describe our relationships with God and Jesus, and we are to love
them.
So, phobou must imply a fear of creating displeasure, much in the
same way that husbands, wives, or slaves should fear (but love) God and Jesus.
Therefore, for clarification;
In several places throughout this Bible where the word
phobou is found, you will see that we have translated it as ‘[Godly] fear.’
The Greek word μωροὶ (pronounced, moe-roi) is often
translated as foolish or fool in other Bibles.
However, μωροὶ is the root
from which we derive the English word moron.
But understand that the term moron,
as used by Jesus and his Apostles, didn’t imply
someone that is mentally challenged, as the medical term ‘moron’ does today.
Rather, it meant someone that knows the difference between doing the right thing and the wrong thing,
but doesn’t care to do what is right.
For example;
The ten virgins of Jesus’
parable in Matthew 25 weren’t just ‘foolish’ girls, they were morons…
They knew
what they should do, but they didn’t care to do it.
Paul wrote (at Hebrews 1:13):
‘And to which one of His messengers did He ever say,
Sit here at My right
until I set your enemies as a stool at your feet?’
Understand that
throughout the entire First Chapter of Hebrews, Paul was quoting scriptures
that described Jesus and that spoke of his earlier position as a messenger (or
‘angel’) of God in the heavens.
There you will find that he was emphasizing
Jesus’ superiority over the other messengers (or ‘angels’), because, as we read
at Hebrews 1:6 that Jesus was God’s ‘firstborn son.’
And among this list
of quotations concerning him, Paul then cited David’s words from Psalm 110:1
(Psalm 109:1 LXX), where King David said:
‘Jehovah said this to my lord:
Sit here at My right hand,
Til I set your enemies as a stool for your feet.’
So, what did God mean when He said that, and when would this prophecy be fulfilled?
Well, notice the
similarity of the events that are described in the book of Revelation, which
(as Revelation 1:10 says) is telling us of the things that would happen in ‘the
Lord’s Day.’
For at Revelation 12: 7-9 we read this:
‘Next, a war broke out in heaven.
MichaEl and his messengers battled with the
Dragon, and the Dragon and his messengers fought back.
However, [the Dragon]
lost and he could no longer stay in the heavens.
So the huge Dragon (the
original snake who is called the Slanderer and Opposer) that is misleading the
whole habitation [of mankind] was thrown down…
He was thrown down to the earth
along with [all of] his messengers.’
Therefore, since
this war in the heavens is likely to happen in a future ‘Day of the Lord,’ we must
assume that;
Until then, the Slanderer has continued to have access to God’s presence
the same as he had back in the time of Job (see Job
1:6-13).
However, according to the Scriptures;
During ‘the Day of the Lord,’ a heavenly war will be fought
and the Evil One and his friends will be thrown out of heaven and down to the
earth.
That this doesn’t seem to have happened yet, is indicated by the words found
at Revelation 12:12, where we read:
‘So, rejoice you heavens and all those that live there,
But woe to the earth and the sea;
For the Slanderer has come down to you in great rage,
Knowing that he has little time.’
As you can see;
The
period that follows the heavenly war will be marked by a special time of ‘woe’
for the earth…
Likely a time of great world wars, famines, plagues, and natural
disasters, the same as Jesus foretold would happen in Matthew 24.
And since this war
results in Jesus’ enemies being thrown down to the earth;
This is obviously
what the scriptures at Psalm 110:1 and Hebrews 1:13 are talking about.
For
Isaiah 66:1 tells us that God said:
‘The heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool.’
So we must assume that when ‘the Lord’s Day’ arrives, and after this great
battle is fought in the heavens, Jesus’ enemies will be thrown down to
‘the footstool’ (the earth).
And we know that this didn’t happen during the
First Century CE, because John spoke of it as being a future thing in the
Revelation, which he wrote almost 65 years after Jesus’ resurrection.
Then, notice what the
account at Revelation 12:10 says will happen after that:
‘Now, the salvation, the power,
And the Kingdom of God has arrived;
For His Anointed has now been empowered,
And the accuser of our brothers has been cast down,
Who blames them before God day and night!’
So it appears as
though;
When Jesus’ enemies are placed as a stool for his feet, Jesus begins his
rule as king of God’s Kingdom, which hasn’t happened yet.
While Ezra’s
commandment (at Ezra 10:11) for the people of IsraEl to send away their foreign
wives and children may seem harsh and unreasonable, we want to understand that
these wives likely weren’t worshipers of IsraEl’s God Jehovah, but of foreign
gods…
And that was the reason why Ezra was so concerned!
For, through the ages,
anyone that chose to join with IsraEl and to start worshiping Jehovah was
accepted as part of that nation…
Rahab and Ruth are good examples of
non-IsraElite women that were accepted because they did this.
However, what was
apparently happening after the Jews returned to their homeland from Babylon,
was that the men were making marriage alliances with the pagan peoples of the
land…
Something that God forbade, and which was remembered as the sin of
Solomon.
So to break up these alliances with the nearby foreign peoples, Ezra
told them that they must send those pagan women back to the homes of their
parents.
Also notice that
kindness was to be shown to these wives and children, because sufficient time was
allowed to keep them from being put out in the cold.
And though the account
doesn’t tell us this;
Many could well have been given some measure of the
family inheritance when they left.
It appears as though
God has provided a secret sign that is known only to God and a person’s mate,
to indicate a person’s desire to be righteous…
The foreskin of the genitalia.
On males this is the extra fold of skin around the top of the penis, and on
females it is the small piece of skin called the hymen.
So, whether this skin
remains unbroken or is removed is something that is quite secret and unseen by
others, but known by God and one’s mate.
It seems unusual
that both of these small pieces of skin appear to have been made to be broken
or cut off without creating any long-term injury;
And in the case of the hymen,
is exclusive to human females (not other animals).
So, it appears as though mankind was
deliberately created with these extra pieces of skin, in order that those who
wish to remain faithful before God and to their mates can choose to indicate
this in a very private way.
We first learned of
the meaning of and the need for males to be circumcised, when God told Abram
(later, AbraHam) that he, all the males in his household, and all his male descendants should
have their foreskin removed.
Note what He said, as found at Genesis 17:10-12:
‘This is the Sacred Agreement between you and your seed through all its
generations, and Me:
All of your males must be circumcised.
The foreskin of
your flesh must be circumcised.
This will be the sign of the Sacred Agreement
between you and Me.
You must circumcise all of your male children when they are
eight-days old, throughout all your generations.
[This includes all the]
servants that are born in your house, those that are bought with money, and the
sons of aliens that are not your seed.’
It is particularly
interesting that new-born males were to be circumcised on the eighth day after
their birth, because that is precisely the best time to perform this delicate
operation, since this is when the least bleeding will occur.
Who would have
known this other than God?
It was later on,
after the death of Jesus and when many gentile converts were coming into the
Christian Congregation that a question about the need for circumcision arose
concerning them.
For, circumcised Jewish Christians were demanding that
uncircumcised gentile converts also be circumcised.
And when the matter was
brought before ‘the Holy Ones’ in JeruSalem;
Their decision was that physical
circumcision was just a sign that God required of the descendants of AbraHam.
So they decreed (as found at Acts 15:28, 29):
‘It’s apparent to the Holy Breath [of God] and to us that we shouldn’t put any
burdens on you other than these necessary things:
Stay away from things that
are sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things that are strangled, and from
sexual immorality.
If you stay away from these things, you will do well.
Good
health to you!’
In other words, physical circumcision was no longer required of Christians.
But on the other hand;
Notice what
Moses wrote (as recorded at Deuteronomy 10:16, 17):
‘So, circumcise the hardness from your hearts and don’t be [rebellious], for
Jehovah your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords.’
As you can see;
There is both a physical circumcision and a spiritual circumcision, and both
amount to a removing of the sign of impurity (for males).
Females of course,
were not to be circumcised, because their foreskin is a sign of their
virginity.
And though modern people may call the cruel practice of surgically
removing the clitoris (as is practiced by many peoples on the African continent
today) ‘female circumcision;’
That is just mutilation, not a removal of the
foreskin.
What is the purpose
of establishing virginity among women?
God’s view is that a man has the right
to choose a woman of high moral character who is clean and untouched.
And for
this, God provided the sign of the foreskin, which bleeds when first broken in
sexual relations.
So in ancient IsraEl
(and among other descendants of AbraHam), the custom was to provide the blanket
or rug on which the marriage had been consummated to the parents of the bride
as proof that their daughter was indeed a virgin.
For we read at Deuteronomy
32:13-15:
‘If any man should take a wife whom he comes to dislike after he has lived with
her, then he starts saying bad things about her and calling her bad names,
saying,
When I took this woman and had sex with her, she didn’t prove to be
a virgin;
Her father and mother must bring the girl’s proof of virginity
(the blanket or rug) to the elders at the city gate.’
And in the same way
that a person can choose to be circumcised in the heart, people can also choose
to be spiritual virgins.
For at Revelation 14:4, we find this said about some
individuals:
‘These didn’t dirty themselves with women.
In fact, they are virgins who
keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.
They were bought from mankind
[and offered] as the first fruitage to God and to the Lamb.’
What type of
virginity is being spoken of there?
This scripture clearly isn’t talking about
living the life of a monk or a nun, but of someone that has kept him/herself
pure in his or her worship of God.
The opposite of this would be those whom the
Disciple James spoke of at James 4:4, where he said:
Adulteresses, don’t you know that if you’re a friend of the world,
you’re an enemy of God?
So, whoever wants to be a friend of the world is
putting himself down as God’s enemy.’
For a graphic view
of what God views as being a spiritual whore;
Read His description of the
unfaithfulness of Judah and IsraEl, where He used the pseudonyms ‘Her Tent’
(Aholah) and ‘Her Tent is Within her’ (AholiBah) to describe these unfaithful
people in the Twenty-Third Chapter of EzekiEl.
In contrast;
Notice that
the account of the Bride of the Lamb (spoken of at Revelation
19:7, 8) tells us:
‘Let’s rejoice, shout in joy, and glorify Him, because it’s time for the Lamb’s
wedding!
His bride has prepared herself and she was found worthy to be dressed
in bright, clean, fine linen.
This fine linen represents the righteous actions
of the Holy Ones.’
Of course, according
to the Law of God;
This bride of Jesus (the Lamb) had to be a virgin, because
of his heavenly position as the High Priest before God.
For notice what God
required of the brides of the entire Priesthood class of IsraEl (Leviticus
21:13-15):
‘He may only take a wife that is a virgin and from his own tribe…
Not a
widow, a divorcee, someone that has been violated, or a prostitute.
He may only
take a virgin from his own people as a wife;
For he must not profane his seed
among his people.
I am Jehovah who makes him holy.’
The Greek word porneia
means more than just copulation between individuals that aren’t married to each
other.
The term literally means that which is sold (by prostitutes).
Therefore, it includes all types of sexual acts that might be sold by
prostitutes and it applies to such actions between those (whether male or
female) that are not married to each other, even when there may be no exchange
of money.
Because, wherever we find the word porneia in the Bible, the
Hebrew Law shows that it involves any intimate relations between unmarried persons.
So, since the English word fornication implies just copulation between
unmarried persons, we have used the broader term sexual immorality in
this Bible to indicate the full range of the meaning of porneia.
(For more information, see the linked document, Christian
Morality.)
You will notice that
in this Bible, we have rendered the Greek word pege (pronounced pay-gay)
as springs, not as fountains or mists, as other translators
have done.
Yes, it could be argued that the Hebrew word (as used in Genesis 2,
for example) could imply a mist.
However, in the various places where we find
the Greek word pege in the Septuagint, the consistent application seems
to be to springs of water.
Pege appears to be a
variation of the word pegnumi, which means to gush (and yes, we
can see how that could be construed as fountain).
However, natural
fountains of water are rare and self-destructive, while gushing springs are
quite common.
And though stylized Bible pictures of fountains shooting from the
ground are quite idyllic, this isn’t the view that we get consistently from the
word’s other uses in the Bible.
Jesus’ half-brother
James wrote (at James 4:4, 5):
‘Adulteresses, don’t you know that if you’re a friend of the world you’re an
enemy of God?
So, whoever wants to be a friend of the world is putting himself
down as God’s enemy.’
Why did James call
such ones ‘adulteresses?
Well, notice what Paul wrote about this to Christians
in Corinth, Greece (at 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3):
‘I’m jealous over you with a Godly zeal, because I personally promised you in
marriage as chaste virgins to a husband…
Yes, to stand beside the Anointed One.
However, I’m afraid that somehow, in the same way that the snake cunningly
seduced Eve, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the
chastity that is owed to the Anointed One.’
Then, what must a
Christian do to remain a ‘chaste virgin’ and not become an ‘adulteress?’
As
James pointed out;
We must stay free from the wicked ways of the world.
Notice
how those that are found worthy to reign in God’s Kingdom were described at
Revelation 14:4, 5:
‘These are the ones that didn’t make themselves unclean with women.
In fact,
they are virgins.
They’re the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where
he goes.
They were bought from among mankind as first fruits to God and to the
Lamb, no lies are found in their mouths, and they don’t have any defects.’
Therefore, spiritual
‘virginity’ is required to be counted among this special group.
How is this
virginity obtained?
Well, notice what was also said of these ‘spiritual
virgins’ at Revelation 20:4:
‘And I saw thrones…
And those that sat down on them were the ones that had been
executed with axes for testifying about Jesus and for telling about God, and
hadn’t worshiped the wild animal or its image, nor had they received its
mark on their foreheads or on their hands.
They were appointed to be judges,
and they came to life and ruled as kings with the Anointed One for a thousand
years.’
So, what must a
person do to avoid worshiping ‘the wild animal and its image’ and having its
‘mark?’
Clearly, those who wish to be found as virgins that are promised in
marriage to ‘the Lamb’ (Jesus) will not be found supporting ‘the wild animal or
its image.’
And since the ‘wild animal’ appears to be something political and
worldly, the point seems to be that true Christians should put their allegiance
and hopes in God’s Kingdom, not in nationalistic or political schemes.
For
notice that according to Revelation 16:13, 14, 16;
These very governments
(kings) will soon go to war against God and His people at the battle that is
described in the Revelation as ‘Har-Mageddon.’
It says there:
‘And then I saw
three unclean spirits that looked like frogs come out of the mouths of the
Dragon, the wild animal, and the false prophet.
These were the unseen powers of
demons, and they were to serve as signs.
They were sent to all the kings of the habitation of
mankind in order to assemble them for the battle of the Great Day of the
Almighty God.
‘They then assembled [all the earth’s kings] at the place that is called in Hebrew, Har-Mageddon.’
So the question
arises:
How can Christians that are promised in marriage to Jesus and that owe
their allegiance to God’s Kingdom still show active support for and put their
trust in this world’s nationalistic political schemes and its wars, and still
remain ‘chaste virgins’ that are worthy of becoming ‘one’ with Jesus?
As James
concluded:
‘Whoever wants to be a friend of the world is putting himself down
as God’s enemy.’
At Ecclesiastes 7:2,
we rendered the Greek words, ‘Agathon poreuthenai eis oikon penthous,’ as, ‘It’s
better to attend a funeral.’
Yet a word-for-word translation says,
‘Is/good
to/go into a/house of/mourning.’
Why have we made this change?
Because in
modern terms, we would refer to this as attending a funeral.
The fourth plague
that God sent to Egypt prior to the IsraElite exodus was a countrywide
infestation of biting flies.
The Greek word for them is kunomuian, which
implies (and is often translated as) dog flies.
And in other Bibles, they are
called gadflies.
Unfortunately, both
of those terms (dog fly and gadfly) are unfamiliar to most readers in the
Americas.
However, when researching the term dog fly, we found that this is
just another name for the common stable fly, which bites like a horsefly but is
about the size of a housefly.
That is why we have settled on this term.
At Luke 4:44, we
have written that Jesus preached in the synagogues of Galilee.
However,
many other Bibles say that Jesus preached in the synagogues of Judea.
Which is correct?
It depends on which
Greek text you use as a reference.
The Wescott/Hort text, which we have used
for much of this Bible, says he preached in Judea, while several other texts (such as the
Tischendorf Greek text) say that he preached in Galilee.
We have chosen to go
with the later rendering, because;
At the time, he was preaching in
Galilee.
The fact is;
Jesus did
little preaching in Judea until the last days of his life on earth, because the
Judeans were always looking to kill him (see John 11:8).
The Greek word GeHenna
is often translated as Hell Fire
in other Bibles.
However, the word simply means the Valley (heb. ge)
of Hinnom.
Understand that the
Valley of Hinnom (also referred to as ‘the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom‘)
was an actual place in ancient JeruSalem.
It wasn’t some symbolic Hell fire;
Rather, it was a valley that was used as the city’s garbage dump, which was
located along the southeastern corner of its outer wall.
Before JeruSalem’s
conquest by Babylon, the Valley of Hinnom had once been a beautiful park.
However, because unfaithful Jews started offering their children as sacrifices
on an altar to the God Moloch
there (see 2 Chronicles 28:3);
After
their repatriation to JeruSalem, the people started using it as a place to dump
their garbage and refuse.
Of course, since it
was a garbage dump, it was necessary to keep the garbage burning in order to
reduce the stench and to limit the number of flies and rats.
So, sulfur and
sulfurous rocks known as ‘brimstone’ were regularly thrown into the dump to keep
the fires burning hot.
And this is why Jesus, when using the term, spoke of the
fire as not being put out.
Also, because worms (maggots) bred along the edges
of the dump, he could say that the worms would always be there.
The only cases where
humans were actually thrown into GeHenna provides an insight into what Jesus
was talking about when he referred to people as going there.
For there were
cases where the dead bodies of particularly vile criminals were thrown into
GeHenna’s fires, because people felt that they were undeserving of a decent
burial.
And as you read the Scriptures, you will notice the importance that
Hebrews placed on being ‘laid to rest with their ancestors.’
So when Jesus spoke
of people being thrown into GeHenna;
He was using the name of a familiar place to
make the point that those whom God views as being unrepentant sinners would be
thrown into the ‘garbage dump;’
For they were unworthy of a resurrection by
Him.
Notice that this outcome was well illustrated by what happened to wicked
Queen JezeBel, for her body was eaten by dogs.
Such an outcome for
the willfully wicked was also referred to by Jesus (in Matthew’s account) as the fire of the age.
Why did he use that
term?
Because fire destroys, and this destruction is for the ages.
(For more
information, see the linked document, ‘Is there a Burning
Hell?’)
At 1 Corinthians
6:9, 10, Paul profiles the types of people that ‘won’t inherit God’s Kingdom.’
And listed among the offenders are (as we have translated it herein) ‘gays and
men that have sex with men.’
Why have we used these terms?
Notice that in the
words of this verse, Paul makes some fine distinctions that cover the full
range of male homosexual behavior.
The Greek word that he used was malakoi,
which we’ve rendered as ‘gays’ herein, because malakoi translates as ‘softies,’
or ‘soft men,’ and it implies those that enjoy having other men obtain sexual
gratification from them.
Then the other term,
arsenokoitai, translates as ‘male/bed-ers’ and is rendered as ‘men that
have sex with men’ herein.
This refers to amoral men that don’t necessarily
consider themselves ‘gay,’ but are willing to take sexual advantage of other
men, as was the case of the men in Sodom.
Recognize that the
‘gay’ lifestyle is usually (but not always) sexually promiscuous;
So, the acts
involved in it usually constitute porneia, as the term is used in the
Bible.
And as with all other sexually-immoral acts;
Those that do such things are
counted among the ‘unrighteous’ whose names are not written in the Scroll of
Life.
However, when the
Bible says that the sexually immoral ‘won’t inherit the Kingdom;’
Does this
mean that they are ‘eternally damned,’ as some religions teach?
Not necessarily, for
Paul referred to them as just ‘unrighteous,’ and he just said that they won’t
‘inherit the Kingdom,’ not that they wouldn’t be resurrected.
For Paul also
said (as recorded at Acts 24:15) that there will be a resurrection for both
‘the righteous and the unrighteous.’
And the promise at Revelation 21:7 is that
all who are resurrected and eventually ‘conquer’ can still receive an
inheritance in God’s Kingdom.
Yes, we know that speaking ill of homosexuality is currently considered ‘politically incorrect,’ but what we are doing is just quoting what the Bible says.
Recognize that
throughout the Bible, all immorality (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is
condemned as unrighteous.
(For more information, see the linked documents, ‘God’s Promise of an Inheritance,’ ‘Christian Morality,’ and the Note, ‘Homosexuality and Bestiality.’)
The Masoretic text
of Genesis 4:7 reads (according to the Net Bible):
‘Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine?
But if you do
not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door.
It desires to dominate you,
but you must subdue it.’
It is the opinion of
some readers that the Septuagint rendering of this verse omits an important
Bible principle.
As it was explained to us:
‘The Genesis 4:7 text God is warning Cain, who became angry, that sin (Satan)
was waiting to get him if he was moved to something evil.
This passage has been
one of the most important texts explaining this idea of authority and the
dominion of Satan in the beginning.
The whole idea of God telling a man that he
had to master sin sets up the coming of Jesus to do just that.’
When the Bible
speaks of ‘the people of the nations’ or ‘the gentiles’ (gr. tas ethne –
or literally, the ethnics), we think of all those that aren’t referred to
as ‘IsraElites’ or ‘Jews.’
However, in Genesis we find another definition of
the term.
Notice that we have rendered Genesis 10:2-5 as saying (with added
notes):
‘JaPheth’s sons were Gamer, Magog, Madoi [the Medes], Jovan, Elisa,
Thobel [of Tubal], Mosoch [of possibly Russia], and Thiras [Islands of the
Aegean Sea].
Gamer’s sons were Aschanaz [Germans], Riphath [of Northwestern
Asia Minor], and Thorgama [the Armenians].
Jovan’s sons were EliShah [of Tyre],
Tarshish [of Spain], Cetians [of Phoenicia], Rhodians [of Rhodes].
[They
settled the] islands, which lands were divided by tribe and nation among the
gentiles, each according to his own language.’
So from this account, we can see that the term, ‘the people of the nations’ or ‘gentiles,’ originally referred to just the descendants of JaPheth (white races) that lived separate from the sons of both Shem and Ham (who lived in the Middle East and Africa).
Also notice that in the battle that AbraHam fought so as to save his Nephew Lot who had been captured (see Genesis 14:1), one of the kings that he fought against was, ‘Thargal, the king of gentiles.’
So notice again that this King Thargal seems to be differentiated from the other non-IsraElite kings, which could mean that he came from among the descendants of Noah’s son Japheth.
Therefore, this raises the question of whether the Bible’s references to the gentiles originally indicated only those that lived in Europe and the Mediterranean islands, and if the term was thereafter extended to include all nations other than just the Tribes of IsraEl.
It is also important
to note that the words ethnics, gentiles, and nations, which are
all derived from the Greek word ethnos, may in several instances carry a
highly symbolic meaning, especially in prophecies.
For these words refer to
peoples that are not (or were not) in a covenant relationship with God.
Take for example,
the reference at Revelation 7:9:
‘And after all that, I saw {Look!} a crowd so large that no one could count
them.
They came from all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups, and
languages;
And they were standing within sight of the throne and within
sight of the Lamb.’
Since ‘the twelve
tribes of IsraEl’ had been mentioned previously (in verses 4-8), these
‘ethnics’ stand out as a different group, and the term may refer to those who
were previously non-Christians (those not claiming to be in a Covenant
relationship with God).
Also, later references to the nations or ethnics in the
Revelation appear to be speaking about those that had yet to make peace with
Him.
The third plague
that God sent to Egypt during the time prior to the IsraElite exodus was a
countrywide infestation of small, biting insects.
The Greek word for them is skniphes,
which has been translated as gnats, fleas, mosquitoes, etc.
We have decided
that they were likely some sort of flea, because gnats aren’t thought of as
biting insects, and the text indicates that they lived on the ground, which
would rule out mosquitoes.
At Psalm 82:1 we
read:
‘God stands in the gathering
of gods,
And among them, He is passing judgment.
So, how long will You judge their injustice
And put up with the presence of sinners?’
This verse – in
fact, all of Psalm 82 – is usually not (or is only vaguely) properly
understood.
Who are the ‘gods’ that God meets with and examines?
Psalm 82:6
tells us:
‘I said to them, You are gods…
You are sons of the Most High!
But like men, you will perish also,
And like their rulers, you’ll fall.’
So from the
context, we can see that these words were being spoken to individuals that were
created directly by God… God’s sons (not ‘sons of men’).
Therefore, it seems
clear that God was speaking to spirit creatures (His messengers or ‘angels’),
some of whom are now referred to as ‘the demons’ (spirits that have received
God’s adverse judgment).
Notice that Jesus
quoted this scripture at John 10:34-36, when he said:
‘Isn’t it written in your Law, I say that you are gods?
So if He called
those that were spoken against in God’s Word, gods (and you can’t void the
Scriptures);
How can you tell me (one that was made holy and sent into the world
by the Father) that I am blaspheming because I say that I am God’s Son?’
Yet from these words
of Jesus, many have assumed that Psalm 82:6 was really speaking of humans and
referring to them as gods, not God’s spirit sons.
But notice that Jesus wasn’t
calling his listeners gods;
Rather, he was saying that those with whom God had
met and whom He had examined (as mentioned in the Psalms) were the ones that
were called gods.
Also notice that they live in ‘darkness’ (Tartarus), since we
read at Psalm 82:5:
‘For they don’t know, nor do they perceive,
Because they travel in darkness,
That the foundations of the earth will be shaken.’
Is there any record in
the Bible that tells of God meeting with a ‘gathering of gods’ (his spirit
sons) in the heavens?
Yes, we read of one such meeting at which even the evil
one was present.
For at Job 1:6 we were told this:
‘Then one day, {Look!} the messengers of God went to stand before Jehovah, and
the Opposer came along with them.
So Jehovah asked the Opposer:
From what
place have you come?’
Therefore it seems clear,
after considering the context, that this psalm of Asaph is referring to God’s
spirit sons as gods (those that are more powerful than humans).
And he
was telling the evil ones among them that because they had been dealing with
mankind unjustly, they (like humans and their corrupt rulers) would also pass
away when the ‘the foundations of the earth’ are ‘shaken.’
Notice that this in
no way diminishes the meaning of what Jesus was saying to the people about
whether he had the right to say that he was God’s son.
For if even the wicked
and rebellious spirit sons of God could be called ‘gods,’ then he wasn’t
blaspheming or being presumptuous when he told them that he was God’s son.
The idea that the
Jews are still God’s chosen people and that they will eventually rule over the
earth from the City of JeruSalem is becoming popular among many fundamentalist
religions today.
However, such a teaching isn’t in line with what we read in
the Bible.
For instance;
Notice
what Jesus said to the people of JeruSalem just before he was put to death
there, as it is recorded at Matthew 23:37, 38:
‘O JeruSalem, JeruSalem… you killer of Prophets and stoner of those that were
sent to you!
How often I wanted to gather your children the way a hen gathers
her chicks under her wings, but you didn’t want it.
Look! Your house has
been taken from you!’
So their ‘house’
(their position of special favor with God) was about to be taken away from
them due to their repeated rejection of God’s ways…
Because they wouldn’t
listen to (and they even murdered) His Prophets, and because they were getting
ready to murder His Son.
Notice how Jesus
pictured this rejection of the Jews as God’s chosen people in his parable of
the man that hired laborers to cultivate his vineyard as he was traveling abroad
(as found at Matthew 21:33-41).
For in this story;
When he sent his servants to
collect some of the fruit, they beat and even killed some of them.
And as was
about to happen to him, the story ends with the cultivators killing the man’s
beloved son.
So, how did Jesus’
parable end?
Verse 41 tells us this:
‘Then he will hire others to
cultivate the vineyard that will
give him the fruit when it’s due.’
And then he went on to tell those elders and
chief priests:
‘This is why I tell you;
The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation
that produces its fruit.’
Also notice that in Matthew 22:1-10, we read a similar parable
that Jesus gave, which told about a king that invited guests to a grand banquet.
However, none of those whom he invited (the Jews) showed up.
In fact;
First
they abused his messengers, and then they killed them.
So, the king sent an
army to destroy those whom he had invited, and then he burned down their city
(JeruSalem), after which, he sent his attendants out to invite others to
the feast.
So, who are these
‘others?’
Well, out of respect for His Sacred Agreement with AbraHam, God
continued to offer the opportunity to be ‘kings and Priests’ in His Kingdom
exclusively to the Jews and to the Samaritans (who lived nearby) for the 3-1/2
years following Jesus’ death.
But after that, the opportunity to become
‘Spiritual Jews’ was offered to the first of many future ‘gentile’ converts,
Cornelius and his family.
And from that point on, the Bible speaks of growing
numbers of gentile converts, as Paul and others were appointed as Apostles (or
‘Sent Ones’) to the nations or gentiles.
Also notice Jesus’
words as found at Matthew 8:12, where he foretold:
‘The Sons of the Kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside, where they will
cry and grind their teeth.’
So, since the Jews were in fact ‘the sons of the kingdom’ or the sons of the AbraHamic promise, the indication here is that they as a nation (but not as individuals) were being rejected.
Then in the letters
of Paul, we read that these gentile converts were thereafter included in the
promise that God made to AbraHam, so they too could become his ‘sons,’ and they
too would become part of a ‘New JeruSalem.’
Notice what Paul wrote about this at Romans 2:28:
‘So, a Jew isn’t what you are on the outside, nor is circumcision
something that’s outside on the flesh.’
In other words;
The
faithful gentiles had become ‘spiritual Jews,’ or the symbolic ‘twelve tribes
of IsraEl.’
Thereafter, it was
to this ‘new nation’ that all the promises and New Sacred Agreements now
applied…
They no longer applied to the earthly city of JeruSalem, for JeruSalem
had been rejected.
Why?
Well, notice what the people in that city replied to
Pilate’s question when they were calling for the murder of God’s Son (at
Matthew 27: 25):
‘At that, all the people said,
May we and our children be responsible for
his blood.’
We also read that
they said (at John 19:15):
‘We have no king but Caesar.’
So the Jews were
not only rejected by God, but they verbally rejected God and asked for the
blood of Jesus to be on them and on their children (all future generations).
This is why the prophecies regarding JeruSalem no longer have anything to do
with a literal city that is located in Palestine today.
Notice that Paul
wrote (at Romans 9:6-8):
‘Now, the word of God didn’t fail, because not all that came from IsraEl are
really IsraEl, nor are all of AbraHam’s seed his children.
For [it’s written]:
That
which will be called your seed will come through IsaAc.
However, [IsaAc’s]
fleshly children aren’t the children of God.
The children of the promise are
that seed.’
Then he added at
Romans 9:27:
‘Isaiah shouted this about IsraEl:
Although the sons of IsraEl may become as
many as the sands of the sea, only a few will be saved.’
And he wrote at
Romans 9:30-33:
‘So we can say that people of the nations (although they weren’t trying to
become righteous) became righteous with the [type of] righteousness that comes
from faith, while IsraEl (which was following a righteous Law) just didn’t make
it!
And why was that so?
Because [IsraEl] didn’t look for it in faith, but
in the things that they were doing… they tripped over the stumbling stone!
As it is written:
{Look!} I’m putting a stumbling stone and a rock to trip over in Zion.
But
those that have faith in him will never be shamed.’
Also, notice what was said – apparently by Jesus himself – hundreds of years before he came to earth as a human, about the Old Sacred Agreement that God had made with IsraEl, as found in the words recorded at Zechariah 11:10-12, 14:
‘Then I’ll take my
stick (the one [I called] Beauty),
And I will throw it away,
To erase [God’s] Sacred Agreement
with them.
‘It will be erased
in that day,
And those in CanaAn that have guarded my sheep
Will know that I am The Word of Jehovah.
‘And then, I’ll tell
them to do
Whatever they find to be good…
Yes, pay my wage or forbid it!
‘So, they
established my wage…
It was thirty pieces of silver.
‘That’s when my
second stick will be thrown
(The one that I called Measured Land).
For I’ll wipe IsraEl and Judah away
From [the land] that they’ve [always] owned.’
As you can see;
The
Jews (those that practice Judaism) can never be considered righteous as long as
they continue to trip over the ‘stumbling stone,’ their promised Messiah, Jesus.
(For more information, see the linked document, ‘JeruSalem
and the IsraEl of God’).
At Amos 7:1 in the
Septuagint, we read about Gog the Grasshopper King, which is mentioned
apparently in reference to the king of Assyria (who would thereafter attack the
northern 10-tribe kingdom of IsraEl)…
Or it could possibly be in reference to the unseen
force behind that great world power.
For it says there:
‘Then the Lord [came and]
showed me {Look!} a breed of locusts that were coming early in the morning, led
by Gog the grasshopper king.’
Note that in Greek, he is described as, βρουχος εις γωγ ο βασιλευς, or, grasshoppers they/are of Gog the king.
However, this term isn’t
found in the modern Hebrew text, which says:
‘This is what the Almighty LORD showed me:
He was preparing swarms of locusts
when the second crop was being harvested.
It was the harvest that followed the
harvest for the king.’
Which is correct?
We
simply don’t know.
What is the message
of the Gospel or ‘Good News’ that Jesus said was to be preached throughout the
entire inhabited earth before ‘the end’ comes?
According to the account at Matthew 24:14, it is to be ‘the good news of the
Kingdom.’
And because most modern religions base their beliefs on what is
written just in the book of Matthew (ignoring the Gospels of Mark and Luke),
they teach that preaching the message of ‘the Kingdom’ should be the foremost.
However, note that in his Gospel, Luke quoted Jesus as saying something quite
different just before he was taken to heaven.
For it reads there (Luke 24:47):
‘Then in his name, [the message of] repentance for forgiveness of sins
is to be preached in all the nations, starting from JeruSalem.’
Which is correct?
Yes, it could be
true that Jesus said both things;
But it is still interesting that Luke (whom
the majority of Bible scholars agree wrote most accurately) records Jesus as
giving us a different message on that occasion.
So, could Matthew’s account of
what Jesus said be wrong?
Possibly, because (as we have pointed out several times in our Notes in the book of Matthew) it appears as though the book of Matthew is one of the most corrupted of the Gospel texts.
The likely reason
for this corruption (if in fact, Matthew’s account is in error in this
instance) is that the current Greek version of Matthew’s writing was probably
translated from the original Hebrew or Aramaic sometime early in the Second
Century CE, after the great ‘turning away’ that Paul foretold (at 2 Thessalonians 2:3) had occurred.
And
it is clear that many changes were made to the Gospel of Matthew both at that
time and through the ages since.
For there are several places in Matthew’s
account that differ quite markedly from the other Gospels, even when those
Gospel writers are clearly quoting from Matthew’s account (yes, Mark and Luke
did quote from Matthew)!
And when considering
the message that Jesus gave Christians to teach;
You might also consider the
message that John the Baptist (who was sent to ‘prepare the way’ for the coming
of Jesus) was told to preach.
At Matthew 3:11 we read:
‘Indeed, I baptize you in water [to show your] repentance.
But the one
that is coming after me is greater than I am.
He will turn many sons of IsraEl
back to Jehovah, their God.’
And again at Luke
1:16, 17:
‘He will travel before him in the power and spirit of EliJah, and he will
prepare a people for the Lord by turning the hearts of fathers back to their
children, and the [hearts] of those that don’t obey to righteous good sense.’
In other words;
John’s message was to be one of repentance and the need to return to righteous
ways (which we so badly need today).
So, are we saying
that the ‘Good News of the Kingdom’ is not the message that should be preached?
Obviously not, for Jesus did in fact also preach about the Kingdom… and it is a
good message of hope.
However, using the questionable words of Matthew 24:14 to
overshadow Jesus’ instructions to preach ‘repentance for forgiveness of sins’
before his return seems an inappropriate choice in an age where faithlessness,
immorality, dishonesty, and lack of love have become so rampant.
(For more
information, see the linked document, ‘Christian
Forgiveness and Repentance’).
But hasn’t John’s
message already been preached?
No, just look around.
Does the world appear to
have repented so that it is now ready for Jesus’ second coming?
Judge for
yourselves.
Matthew (who was
also known as Levi – pronounced Leh-vee, as in Levine) was one of the
first disciples of Jesus, and he was later appointed by him to be an Apostle
or Sent One.
According to ancient Christian writers such as Origen (who wrote during the
early 3rd Century), Matthew’s account was the first recorded Gospel.
Origen
wrote:
‘The first book was written by Matthew.
This Gospel was composed in Hebrew near
Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and translated into Greek, but the Greek copy
was lost.’
So while it’s true
that we strongly disagree with many of Origin’s personal religious views, which
reflect the pagan influences that started entering Christianity during the
early 2nd Century;
Our research of the book of Matthew indicates that Origen
was probably right about his book being the first written Gospel (regardless of
what modern critics have said), and that it likely was written in either Hebrew
or Aramaic, then later translated into Greek.
We also think that
the first Greek copies of the Gospel of Matthew were lost;
For the many
errors and additions as mentioned in these Notes indicate that the existing
Greek text was in fact translated again and corrupted sometime in the 2nd
Century by the same person or group that translated other First Century NT
books into Greek.
We have partly drawn this conclusion from the use of certain
unusual Greek words (such as parousias) that are found only in later
Greek translations of the writings of Matthew, Paul, James, Peter, and John
(which were likely originally penned in Aramaic).
(For more information, see the
linked document, ‘Coming, Presence, or Nearness?’)
The Greek word Hades
(the Greeks pronounced it hah-dess) has been translated both as Hell
(which many today think of as a place of torture) and as the Grave in other
Bible versions (such as the King James).
Since one word can’t mean two very
different things, which translation is correct?
Hades was originally
the name of the Greek god of the underworld, but the term eventually came to
mean the place of his realm, ‘the place of the dead.’
And especially among
Christians and Moslems, it started to be thought of as a place of torture of
wicked souls.
However, an insight
into what the ancient early Christians understood the word to mean can be
gained from looking at how it was applied in the Greek Septuagint translation
of the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (which appears to have been the ‘Old
Testament’ Bible that Jesus and his Apostles quoted).
There the Hebrew word Sheol
is translated into Greek as Hades in every instance.
And if you take the
time to look each instance up, you’ll see that these are obvious references to the
grave or the place of the dead, not to a place of conscious torture.
(See Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 as an example).
But, was this the same thing that Jesus and his Apostles were talking about when they spoke of Hades?
You might notice,
for example, what Jesus’ Apostle John wrote about what will happen to those in Hades
as he described it at Revelation 20:13.
In the NIV Bible translation (as well
as in several other Bibles), the verse is rendered this way:
‘The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead
that were in them.
And each person was judged according to what they had done.’
So, notice that in
this reference to Hades, people were spoken of as coming out of that place
(being resurrected), and after that, they were judged.
As you can see, they
hadn’t even been judged and condemned yet!
Therefore, Hades is probably
better translated as grave in this instance, or even better as the
place of the dead in that scripture.
And something you
might notice is that Hades isn’t the only Greek word that is translated as Hell
in the Bible.
For if you would like to see a complete list of these words and
the descriptions of their true meanings, please see the linked document, ‘Is There a Burning Hell?’
Why was HaMan so
hated by MordecAi (in the Bible book of Ether)?
Well, we learn from the account
that he was an AgAgite, which indicates that he probably was a descendant of
AgAg, an ancient king of the Amalekites, which was a race that had been cursed
by God and were almost totally wiped out by King David.
Also, according to
the Midrash, Haman had an
idolatrous image embroidered on his garments.
And so, those who bowed to him
also had to bow to the image.
Therefore, if these reasons are true, they explain why MordecAi refused to bow before HaMan.
In addition;
The
Midrash also says that Haman was an astrologer (God’s Law forbids astrology),
and this seems to be confirmed by the method he chose to fix the time for the
genocide of the Jews…
By casting lots to determine the best day to destroy the
Jews.
However, if HaMan
was in fact an Amalekite, then why was HaMan also referred to as a Macedonian
at Esther 9:24?
You can find reasons for this offered in the Wikipedia
description of him (see the reference Haman).
But it seems
logical to us that after King David wiped out most of his race, any who
remained would likely have left the land and assumed other nationality
identifications.
The Greek word meso
means middle (as in the English term, meso soprano).
However, it
is often translated as middle, midst, among, and HATE in other
Bibles.
Obviously, hate (an extreme emotion in English) isn’t conveyed by the
word middle, which simply means less.
For that reason, the word
is translated as dislike (or the equivalent) herein, whenever it refers
to the emotion.
(For more information, see the Strong’s Concordance link to the
word Miseo).
In both the Ancient Scriptures of IsraEl (OT) and the Christian Era Scriptures (NT), we find the entire realm of creation divided into just three descriptions, the heavens (or sky), the earth (the land or ground), and the seas (or the waters) and rivers.
In contemporary
English, we understand that there is a difference between the words heaven and
sky, and the words earth and land (or ground).
However, in both the Hebrew and
Greek Bible texts, these fine distinctions that we accept because of our modern
technology can’t be found.
So, Genesis 1:1 can be literally and very accurately
translated as saying:
‘In the beginning, The God created the sky and the land.’
For this is what the words found there really mean, since it was the first
man’s view of creation from the place where he was standing.
There was just the
land beneath him and the sky above him.
At the time, men had
no understanding of the earth as a planet or of a cosmos of stars, because they
had never seen the earth as a globe floating in space, as most of us have done
today.
Nor did they have any idea what the stars and planets were, as we now do.
So, they had just one word to describe the earth, land, or ground, and
just one word to describe the skies or the heavens (the realm of God).
Therefore, to
clarify what is actually meant in each instance where these single words are
found, translators have used many English words to translate them.
And as you
will see, something as simple as selecting the wrong synonym can give us quite
a different view of the meanings of some very common Bible verses.
Realize that the Greek word ourano
can be correctly translated as heaven, heavens, sky, and skies,
depending on the context and tense.
But if the translator chooses the wrong
English word to translate it in a particular instance, most people will reach a
wrong conclusion because of the nuance that the particular English word implies.
You might notice,
for example, the account of where the Prophet EliJah was snatched away in a
celestial chariot (at 2 Kings 2:11).
If you ask most people where they think he
was taken, they’ll say (as their Bibles put it), ‘into heaven, where he went to
live with God.’
However, this isn’t true, because the Bible tells us that King
JehoRam later received a letter from Elijah (see 2 Chronicles 21:12).
Therefore, we must
assume that God had used the celestial chariot to take him into ‘the sky’ (the
proper translation here), where he was then sent to another place here on the
earth.
(For more information as to why he couldn’t have gone into the presence
of God, see the linked document, ‘The Hereafter.’)
So, where is heaven?
Understand that the Bible word that is translated as ‘heaven’ (ourano)
means any place that is above the ground of planet earth;
So
in any given instance, ourano can be speaking of the atmosphere around us, or
of open space, or of another planet or galaxy, or possibly even of someplace
outside of the space-time continuum, as we understand it.
Therefore,
we really have no idea of where God meets with His spirit sons (as
mentioned in Job) or what that place really looks like…
And that we have no concept of
what ‘being taken to heaven’ really means!
Likewise, the Greek
words ge, ges, and gen can be translated as earth, earths,
ground, grounds, land, or lands, depending on the context and tense.
And notice how a wrong choice of English words affects how we view what Jesus
said at Matthew 5:5, for example.
This verse reads in Greek:
‘Makarioi oi praeis hoti outoi kleronomesousin ten gen,’
or,
‘Blest the meek, for they will/inherit the (earth, ground, or land).’
Some Bibles translate Jesus as
saying, ‘The meek will inherit the earth.’
However, other Bibles quote
him as saying, ‘The meek will inherit the land.’
So, do you see the
difference that the nuances (‘earth’ or ‘land’) make here?
Yet, understand that
both word choices are equally correct, since they are both translated from
the same Greek word, and your understanding of the meaning depends on what
you prefer to believe.
For a good example of the problems that are created by the wrong use of the words ge, ges, and gen, see the linked document, ‘Isaiah 24 – Is It Speaking of Armageddon?’
You might also consider
the symbolic words found at 2 Peter 3:5, 6, which we have translated as saying:
‘The thing that they don’t want to understand is this:
That the ancient sky and land were out of the water, but
(in obedience to God’s instructions) they stood together between the waters.’
Shouldn’t this verse read ‘heavens and earth,’ as the words are translated in other Bibles?
No, for notice that
Peter was talking about the things that had happened to the earth in the time of
Noah, and he was explaining where all the water came from.
He was saying that
the earth’s ancient atmosphere and the surface of the land below it was once
located ‘between the waters’…
That is, there was water under the ground that
arose at that time, and there was also water high in the sky that fell to the
earth.
So he was saying that the water came from both above and below.
Obviously, he wasn’t
saying that the water came from the heavenly presence of God;
He was saying
that it came from somewhere in or above earth’s atmosphere, and from under the
ground!
Also, what did John
see that he described at Revelation 21:1?
Did he see ‘a new heavens and new
earth,’ or a ‘new sky and new land,’ as we have quoted him as saying?
Well, he actually saw something disappear, and then something new came into existence.
So, do you think
that he saw the realm of God (or the entire universe) and the globe of the
earth (of which he had no concept) go away and then something new coming to
take their place?
Not likely!
Rather, it just makes good sense that what he saw
was the land beneath him and the sky above him disappear.
And then they were
replaced by a new land and a new sky.
So, ‘land and sky’ is the better
translation in this case.
While we as translators claim no in-depth knowledge of the Hebrew language (the OT portion of this Bible is taken from the Greek Septuagint text), we do find the prophecies, blessings, and songs both interesting and beautiful, because they were written, spoken, and sung poetically.
In both Ancient
Hebrew and Greek, you’ll find that rather than putting the words together in a
rhyme in their poetry, as we commonly do in English today where ending words
must sound alike;
The sentences fit together so that the thoughts follow each
other in an orderly progression, which makes them easy to remember and to sing.
For by this method;
As long as a person understands the thought, the poetry can
be correctly repeated even when slightly different words are used.
You’ll notice that
many Hebrew songs were broken into four lines per verse, the thoughts of which
followed in a logical order (the first sentence is followed by the same thought
in the second sentence).
A classic illustration of this style of Hebrew poetry
can be found at Psalm 18:4, 5, where we read:
‘By the pangs of death, I once was surrounded…
I was being attacked by floods of the lawless.
Of the place of the dead, I was in fear…
And I was expecting death’s snares.’
Unfortunately, however, we don’t always find such symmetry throughout the texts, and we don’t know if this is because it was originally written that way, or because of our misunderstanding of the Ancient Hebrew methods or words, or due to the fact that much has been lost in transcribing or translating over time.
Yet, you will notice
that in this Bible, entire books (such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
etc.) and most of the words that God or His messenger spoke in the prophetic
works (such as in Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) were written as poetry.
And notice that even
Jesus (in many of his parables) spoke that way…
The ‘beatitudes’ in Matthew 5 are a good example of this.
We know that these
texts were originally written as poetry or songs, because in the translating
process, we could recognize the cadence from the order and progression of the
words.
In fact, although we didn’t write it that way, the entire First Chapter of Genesis was clearly written as a poem
or song…
Just look at the order and the starting words of each paragraph.
Why did God’s spokesperson and the ancients
speak in poetry?
It was probably done so that the words could be remembered and
sung…
For songs were the ancient method of mass communication before the
printed page.
Notice that wherever
we found the natural poetic rhythm in our translating, we have tried to restore
the cadence for your benefit.
This required some rearranging and the addition
or removal of extraneous words, but we have zealously worked to maintain the
true meanings of the texts.
Why did we do this?
Well, not only does it provide a more pleasant reading, but also in places
where the lyrics can’t be resolved, it is easy to see where something may have
been lost through the years due to poor translation or deliberate forgery.
Note
Proverbs 25 and 26 for example;
For the lack of natural cadence and harmony
there makes us wonder whether something has been lost in copying or
translating.
Remember that those were SONGS!
Also note two verses
of the song that the IsraElite women were singing when Saul and David returned
from a battle, as found at 1 Samuel 18:7:
‘Saul has cut down his thousands,
And David his tens of thousands.’
Although these were
just two lines of a much longer victory song, the particular words offended
King Saul;
For he felt that David was being considered more important by the
people than he was.
Yet, if you understand Hebrew poetry, you can see that the
words were just part of a natural poetic progression and they weren’t
necessarily chosen to offend Saul.
Rather, Saul was being a bit over-sensitive.
We often hear people
using the words Hebrews, IsraElites, Jews, and Semites interchangeably, as
though they refer to the same people, and they don’t necessarily.
AbraHam and
all his descendants were Hebrews, for they all descended from Abram’s (or
AbraHam’s) great, great, great grandfather Heber.
However, many other lines of descent also came from that man, so many other
races could likely be called Hebrews.
The first mention of
the word Hebrew is found at Genesis 14:13, where AbraHam was referred to
as being one.
And thereafter, IsaAc, IshMaEl, and AbraHam’s other sons were
also called Hebrews, as were Jacob, Esau, and all their descendants.
The first IsraElites
(who were also Hebrews) were the twelve sons of Jacob, whom God renamed IsraEl.
So thereafter, their families were often referred to as both the ‘Sons of IsraEl’
and as ‘Hebrews.’
Then, during the time of King David, a split developed between
the tribe of Judah (the Jews) and the rest of the tribes that called themselves
‘IsraEl.’
For, during the first portion of David’s reign, he ruled over just
Judah;
And then later, both he and Solomon ruled over all the tribes… a
reunited IsraEl.
However, the split
between the tribes arose once again after the rule of Solomon, when the
northern ten tribes rebelled and created their own kingdom, which they called
IsraEl.
For, that’s when they removed themselves from the kingship of the southern two tribes
(Judah and BenJamin), who were thereafter referred to in English as the Jews.
There were also many
people that came to be called both Jews and IsraElites that weren’t really from
the lines of either Judah or IsraEl, because God’s Law allowed foreigners to
become a part of their nation.
In fact RaHab, the prostitute of JeriCho (who
was a CanaAnite, not a Semite, Hebrew, or IsraElite) became the ancestress of
Kings David, Solomon, and eventually Jesus…
As was also true of the Moabite,
Ruth.
The Anglicized term
‘Jew’ is actually an English corruption of the word ‘Judean.’
And though Jesus and many
of his disciples were in fact Judeans, they were often referred to by people
that lived in the Roman province of Judea as Galileans.
This happened because they came
from an area outside of Judea near the Sea of Galilee, which was separated from
Judea by settlements of Samaritans.
Therefore, when Jesus and his disciples
spoke of ‘the Jews,’ they often meant the people that lived in and around the
city of JeruSalem or in the province of Judea.
The term ‘Semite’
even predates the term ‘Hebrew,’ because it refers to descendants of Noah’s son
Shem…
Which likely covers at least a third of the peoples on the earth.
So,
whenever anyone accuses another of being ‘anti-Semitic,’ he or she is actually
accusing the person of being biased against a broad range of peoples, including
many so-called Arab nations.
For, many peoples of the Middle East are
also Hebrews, some are direct descendants of AbraHam, and some are
even descendants of IsraEl (Jacob).
When Paul wrote at
Romans 14:5,
‘One considers a day as more important than other days, while
another considers each day as all the rest;’
It is clear that the problem he was
addressing had to do with Jewish Christians trying to convince the gentile
Christians that it was necessary for them to observe the special days,
festivals, and Sabbaths as they are prescribed in the Law of Moses.
And here,
Paul was simply pointing out that, though there was nothing wrong with doing so,
they really didn’t have to observe those days any longer.
So, when he went on to write (in verse 6),
‘Those that observe a certain
day [as holy] should observe it to the Lord;’
You can see that he wasn’t
encouraging Christians to celebrate pagan holidays if they so wished;
But
rather, he was saying that gentile Christians were under no obligation to
celebrate Old-Law holidays or to follow Old-Law dietary restrictions.
In Paul’s letter to
the Romans, you can see that he was partly writing to address problems that had
arisen between the Jews and gentiles in the congregation there in Rome…
In
fact, it’s the same problem that he had to address in many of his writings to
other congregations also.
For example;
In this case, there were apparently
jealousies and feelings of superiority on the part of both Jewish and gentile
Christians (see Romans 3:1, 9).
So, Paul’s purpose in writing
was to try to settle the differences and to bring both races toward complete
unity as one man in Jesus (Romans 3:22; 12:5).
For, as you can see throughout
the rest of Chapter 14, Paul went on to say that those who don’t feel
comfortable eating food that is forbidden under the Jewish Law shouldn’t be
judged, and that those who do eat such food shouldn’t be judged either.
And
this was the point that he was also making about Jewish holidays in verses 4 and 5…
Christians shouldn’t be judging each other over such trivial matters.
These words are
found at 1 SamuEl 18:1:
‘As Saul was speaking, [the heart of his son] JoNathan became bound to David…
He loved him as much as his own life.’
This verse is often
quoted to prove that King David had a male lover in JoNathan.
However, the
Greek word (in the Septuagint) that is used for ‘love’ here, agape,
seems to disprove that idea;
For if this were a physical, sexual love, the word
that would have been used is eros, which implies a sexual attraction.
On
the other hand, agape (the kind of love that JoNathan had for David)
refers to something that is principled or pure…
The love of a dear friend.
If you search the
Internet for references to Leviticus 18:22, you will find hundreds of citations
and opinions.
Some of these argue that God forbids homosexuality, and many
others argue against that thought.
So, let’s consider what the Greek Bible text
actually says.
The words found there are:
‘Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten bdelugma gar estin,’
Or,
‘And with males not bed as/bed women, disgusting for is.’
As you can see from
the wording;
It is clear that the Old Law was forbidding male/male intercourse
here, calling the acts disgusting (gr. bdelugma).
And then notice that
the words that follow seems to draw a parallel to human/animal intercourse.
For
in the next verse (Leviticus 18:23) we read:
‘Nor may you lie down and have sex with any animal, for that would pollute you.
Nor should any woman offer herself before any animal to have sex with it,
because that would be disgusting.’
However, remember
that this Law was given to and just applied to those that lived among the people
of IsraEl (not to all mankind).
And as Paul pointed out;
This old Law was
superseded by the New Sacred Agreement and its Law of love.
So, may we conclude
that God no longer has a law against such things?
Yes, that is so… but that
doesn’t mean He condones it.
For at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, Paul listed ‘gays
(gr. malakoi) and
men that have sex with men (gr. arsenokoitai)’
with adulterers and other sexually immoral people;
And he said that such ones
wouldn’t ‘inherit God’s Kingdom.’
Also, Paul wrote (at
Romans 1:26-28):
‘And this is why God abandoned them to their dishonorable passions;
For their
females have changed the natural use of themselves into something that’s
unnatural, and the same is true of their males!
They have left the natural use of
females and started burning in their lust toward each other – males with males –
doing what is indecent and receiving the type
of reward they deserve for such wrongdoing.
And because they don’t approve of
coming to an accurate knowledge of The God;
He has given them depraved minds,
which make them do these wrong things.’
But does this mean
that people who do such things are ‘eternally damned’ as many believe?
No, it
just means that God does not view them as righteous.
Therefore, they apparently
still have a hope of a resurrection.
(For more information, see the linked
documents, ‘The Hereafter,’ ‘The Resurrection,’ and ‘Christian Morality.’)
As you read the
Bible, you will notice that one of the things God views as most disgusting is
when people are treated – or when they
treat others – unjustly, especially when
it comes to legal or religious trials.
For God’s disgust with those that make
unrighteous judgments is repeatedly given as the primary reason why He brought
destruction upon Judah and IsraEl.
However, despite
God’s strong views on this, people often fail to understand the serious of the
situation they put themselves in whenever they are asked to pass judgment on
others, and to do so honestly.
As an example;
Notice what Jesus said, as recorded at
Matthew 7:1:
‘Do not judge others, so you won’t be judged.
For the [rules] by which you judge others
Are the rules they will use to judge you,
And the standards you are setting for them
Are the standards that they’ll set for you.’
So, does this mean
that Christians should never allow themselves to be put in a position where
they must make decisions about the actions of other people, especially their
brothers?
No, for notice what Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 6:5, 6:
‘Isn’t there at least one wise man among you that can [serve as] judge between his
brothers?
Or must a brother take a brother to court to be judged by
unbelievers?’
As you can see;
There are times when Christian elders must judge the wrong (and especially the
notorious) actions of other Christians, where the holiness of the congregation
is impugned.
However, anyone that
is put in such a situation of judging must realize the seriousness of the
decisions that they make…
They may not be influenced by the coercion of others
or by their own personal feelings.
For, making a wrong judgment is the worst
thing a Christian judge may do in the eyes of God!
And a wrong decision (either
too lenient or too harsh) may disqualify that person from serving as a judge
ever after.
So the point is this:
Christian judges (or jurors) must realize that whenever they are put in a
position where they must judge other people, God is also judging them.
And
while passing a wrong judgment on others may have a temporary effect on that
person;
Taking the matter too lightly and making a decision based on a lack of
thought or for wrong reasons may bring the wrath of God upon that judge…
For He
will judge that judge with the same lack of compassion or reason that he or she has used
in their judgment of others.
Then does this mean
that responsible Christians must overlook and even ‘forgive’ the actions of
their unrepentant brothers so that they aren’t judged negatively by God?
No, it
means that they must be fair in their judgments.
Notice especially Paul’s
charge to Timothy found at 1 Timothy 5:21:
‘Don’t jump to any conclusions before you hear the evidence, and never make a
decision because you are biased one way or the other.’
Good advice for all.
At Romans 8:19-21 we read:
‘Indeed, [all] creation is awaiting and earnestly expecting the
revealing of the sons of God.
For His creations were never willingly subjected
to futility.
Rather, they were subjected to it by the will of the One that gave
us the hope that all creation will soon be set free from bondage to decay and
then enter the glorious freedom of the children of God!’
What is Paul really
saying here?
One noted religious authority wrote:
‘Do beasts and plants hope to attain the glorious freedom of the children of
God?
No!
All creation, then, can refer only to mankind.’
Is this conclusion
correct?
If so, then Paul just didn’t use the right words!
For, why would he
have said creation (gr. ktisis), when he really meant mankind
(gr. anthropois)?
Let’s assume for a
moment that Paul actually meant the words that he wrote…
That all creation
will be set free, and see if this promise can really come true for any others
than just humankind.
First, what is this ‘glorious freedom of the children of God?’
From the promise found at Revelation 21:1, we can conclude that such freedom
will result from the arrival of the ‘new
skies and new lands’…
The coming rulership of our earth by Jesus and
those whom he selects to rule as kings with him.
And will such a righteous rule
be a blessing to more than mankind…
Could even the animals benefit from the
rule of God’s Kingdom?
Note that at Genesis 1:28, we read that God gave men the
following commission:
‘Reproduce, multiply, fill the earth
and control it.
Rule over the fish of the seas, the winged creatures of
the skies, all the herding animals of the ground, all the slithering animals
that crawl on the ground, and the whole earth.’
So, this good rulership will affect both men and the animals over whom they are appointed to rule!
However, it appears
as though the first humans (Adam and Eve) relinquished this privilege of
rulership over the earth and its animals when they sinned and submitted to the
Slanderer, effectively handing their commission over to him.
And the net effect
of this over the past seven thousand or more years,
is that humans have lost their right to rule over the earth and its creatures
in the way that God originally intended.
This is why Paul wrote (at Hebrews
2:8):
‘So when [God] puts everything under [his feet], He doesn’t leave anything over
which [men] aren’t in charge.
However, we don’t see everything obeying us yet.’
No, as Paul said,
‘We don’t see everything obeying us yet.’
Nor do we see this world in general
responding to Jesus’ righteous rule.
However, Paul wrote that this situation
will all change under the rulership of the children of God.
For when the
commission that God gave humans over this earth and its creatures is fully
restored, we can scarcely imagine what powers will be returned to mankind.
With
no opposition and each person endowed with a full measure of the power of God’s
Breath, the blessings to this earth, its creatures, and ALL CREATION can be
virtually limitless.
(For more information, see the linked contributed poem, ‘Animals Our Wards’).
On which mountain
did Moses meet with God… Mt. Sinai or Mt. Horeb?
Actually, both names seem to
be mentioned interchangeably in most Bibles.
For at Exodus 34:2, Moses was
told:
‘So, be ready to climb Mount Sinai in the morning, then stand there [and
wait] for Me on top of the Mountain.’
But notice that at Exodus 33:6, the
IsraElites were said to be gathered at Mount Horeb.
Why were both names used?
Well, Horeb may not
have actually been a name, but a description that whas been mistranslated as a
name…
Something that has happened with several other words in the Bible.
Ho’reb
is a Hebrew word for dry, which aptly describes this land in the Sin
(pronounced Seen and/or Sheen) Desert, near the southern tip of
Arabia.
For it is close to where Moses, by the power of God, struck the rock to
bring out water for the people to drink, since there was no other source of
water there.
Sinai, on the other
hand, may have gotten its name from its prominent place toward the end of the
Sin Desert.
However, Hebrew scholars say that Sinai means bush,
referring to the burning bush where God spoke to Moses.
Most Bible
translations render Paul’s words at Acts 20:20 as saying that he had taught
‘publicly and from house to house.’
Yet, that isn’t exactly what he said;
For
the Greek words were actually, ‘demosia kai kat oikous,’
Or,
‘in/public and
according/to house.’
So, notice that
there is actually no mention in the original Greek text of moving between houses.
Therefore, The
New Living Translation rendered Paul’s words as, ‘publicly or in your
homes.’
And The Bible in Basic English renders them as ‘publicly and
privately.’
So, what was Paul actually saying?
Well, to better
understand the actual meaning of the words, it is important to look at the
context.
Notice the entire setting, as it is laid out in verses seventeen
through twenty-one:
‘However, [while he
was] in Miletus, he (Paul) sent word to Ephesus to call the elders of the
congregation to him.
And when they arrived, he told them:
You know very well
that from the first day I stepped into Asia, I was with you all along, humbly
slaving for the Lord.
And [you know] of all the tears and trials I endured
because of the plots of the Jews.
Yet, I didn’t fail to remind you and teach
you both in public and in [your] homes;
For I gave a thorough witness to both
Jews and Greeks about [the need to] repent before God and [to have] faith in
our Lord Jesus.’
As you can see;
Paul
wasn’t saying that he went from house to house preaching to strangers.
Rather,
he was speaking to Christian elders and reminding them of how he had preached
to them both publicly and in the privacy of their own homes.
Then, does this mean
that Paul didn’t preach from house to house?
No, we’re not saying that.
For
it’s hard to explain which means early Christians used to preach the word of
Christianity so successfully that it eventually reached throughout the whole
earth.
The only record that we have (the Bible Book of Acts and the Epistles of
Paul) tell us that they spoke in public places such as in synagogues, in
auditoriums, and in the local markets.
Yet, we do know that
when Jesus sent his Apostles out to do preaching, they went to nearby cities
and spoke to strangers, and they usually stayed overnight in the homes of those
that welcomed their message.
For notice what Jesus told them at Luke 10:5-7:
‘Then, as you enter each house you should say,
May this house have peace.
And if a son of peace lives there, your peace will rest upon him;
But if not,
it will return to you.
So, stay in that house and eat and drink the things they
provide, because a worker deserves his wages…
Don’t keep moving from one house to another.’
Throughout the
Bible, the Greek word that is used in most places to describe the Temple of
Jehovah is Oikos (pronounced Oy-koss), or House.
That is also true when
it comes to describing the building where the king lived (the texts just say
‘house’).
However, for clarification, we have usually chosen to translate oikos
as Temple when it is speaking of the place of worship of Jehovah, and as
palace when speaking of the king’s house.
We have done this because
neither of these buildings were just regular houses, and the words Temple
and palace better describe their appearance and use in contemporary
American English.
There is a Greek
word that actually means Temple, which is also used many times in the
Bible;
It is hiero.
And another Greek word that is frequently
(incorrectly) translated as Temple, is naos (pronounced nah-oss)…
But this refers the Temple’s Most Holy or inner
sanctuary.
You can see proof of
the Bible’s inspiration by God and of some of its prophetic significances in
the songs of King David as found in the book of Psalms.
For there are numerous
verses in the Psalms that exactly mirror the words and actions of Jesus, as
well as many of the things that happened to him.
Note for example, what David
wrote at Psalm 22:16-18:
‘Many dogs have me
surrounded
And the wicked are gathering around me.
They’re cutting into my hands and my feet;
They count all my bones as they watch me and think.
They’ve divided my garments among them,
And thrown dice for the clothes that I wear.’
As you can see;
The
words of this Psalm foretold things that actually happened to Jesus at the time
of his death.
So, as you read the Psalms, look for the many parallels and
prophecies that foretell the words and earthly life of Jesus.
Psalm 110 in
particular appears to have been written under inspiration with Jesus in mind,
for Jesus applied this scripture to himself at Matthew 22:43-45, Peter applied
it to him at Acts 2:35, and so did Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:25 and in the book
of Hebrews.
So, there is no question that this Psalm specifically referred to
the coming of Jesus.
In addition;
Have
you noticed that David often referred to himself as the Christ?
You may
not have, because the Greek word christon (christ) and its Hebrew
equivalent meshiac (messiah) are usually translated as anointed
wherever they are found in Old Testament texts of most Bibles.
Yet, David could
truly refer to himself as the christ (or, the messiah), because
he (like Jesus) had been anointed to be the king over all IsraEl by God.
It has long been argued
that the Bible is wrong (once again) when it speaks of the size of the city of
Nineveh at Jonah 3:3.
For in the Masoretic (Hebrew) text this verse reads
(according to GOD’S WORD Translation):
‘Jonah immediately went to Nineveh as the LORD told him.
Nineveh was a very
large city.
It took three days to walk through it.’
Yet, archaeological evidence proves that the city simply wasn’t that large.
So,
was Jonah’s account wrong?
Notice, for example,
these comments as excerpted from the online page, The Skeptical Review:
‘Realistically, we could expect Nineveh to have a walled circumference of
approximately three miles, assuming that the population figures are accurate.
Interestingly, archeologists have found walls that likely were Nineveh, and
they were about three miles around.
So Nineveh was not a three-day journey in
breadth, unless Jonah was a really slow walker.’
Actually, the error
doesn’t appear to be an inaccuracy in Jonah’s account.
Rather, it looks like
the error is in the wording of the Hebrew text.
For notice that the Septuagint
(Greek) text says (Jonah 3:3, 4):
‘So Jonah got up and went to Nineveh, just as Jehovah had told him, which took
him three days (for God considered Nineveh a great city).
Then when Jonah
entered the city, he spent the day traveling through it proclaiming,
In just
three days, Nineveh will be wiped away!’’
So according to the
Septuagint, it only took Jonah a day to walk through the city proclaiming his
message;
But it appears as though it took him three days to get to the city
from wherever he was at the time!
(For more information on the accuracies of
both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, see the document, ‘Why the Greek Septuagint?)
Hypocrite is a Greek word that is just spelled a little differently than it is in
English (hypokritai).
However, we give the English word a nuance that
isn’t implied in Greek.
The first part of the Greek word, hypo, means under,
and the second part, kritai, means judge (it’s where we get the
English words critical and criticize).
So in the Bible, a
hypocrite is a ‘lesser judge,’ or one that is very judgmental of the actions or
conduct of others.
This differs from the meaning in English:
Someone who
doesn’t follow his own advice.
The Scribes and
Pharisees were referred to as Hypocrites by Jesus, because they commonly
condemned the actions of others to make themselves look superior.
And like
anyone that tends to be critical of others, they likely failed in the same ways
as those whom they condemned…
And that would also make them fit the English
definition.
However, the Bible meaning is basically, ‘judgmental.’
Being too judgmental
is a very serious flaw, which is common to those that think of themselves as
being very righteous.
It is reported that the Pharisees especially thought
themselves to be more righteous than others, and it was their opinion that they
would be the only ones to be found righteous by God.
But, notice what Jesus said
would happen to those that are too judgmental (Matthew 7:1):
‘Do not judge [others],
so you won’t be judged.
For the [rules] by which you judge others
Are the rules they will use to judge you;
And the standards you are setting for them
Are the standards that they’ll set for you.’
In Daniel Chapter
Two, we read of how King NebuChadnezzar of Babylon saw a huge image in a dream
that had a head of gold, hands chest and shoulders of silver, belly and thighs
of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and baked clay (pottery).
Then DaniEl
explained that King NebuChadnezzar (or the world empire of Babylon that he
founded) was the head of gold, and that his kingdom (or empire) would be
followed by a lesser king (the one of silver)…
Which turned out to be the
empire of Persia, along with their ally and close neighbor, the Medes.
DaniEl described the
next empire (the one of brass) as one that would ‘dominate the whole earth’…
Which aptly describes the empire of Greece under Alexander the Great.
And the
next ‘king’ or empire (the legs of iron) was described by him as being ‘as
strong as iron.
For as iron crushes and tames all things, it will tame and
crush everything.’
This, of course, described Rome during and after the time of
Julius Caesar.
But, which empire (king) is represented by the feet of iron and
baked clay?
We know that it has to be a last empire, since the account says
that it will be replaced (crushed) by God’s Kingdom.
There have been
several world empires in the millennia since the time of Roman domination.
However, the Bible only speaks of one empire after Rome.
So, which would that
be?
The first clue comes
from the Greek words used in verse 41, where we read (in part):
‘kai apo tes rizes tes sideras estai en on,’
Or,
‘And from the roots of/the iron is in it.’
So, we must conclude
that this ‘king’ is rooted in the Roman Empire, and this could refer to Spain,
France, or England, for they all had deep Roman roots…
But which one?
The next clue comes
from the words found in verses 42 and 43, which say:
‘And because the toes of the feet are part iron and part baked clay;
Part of
the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be broken.
For as you saw the
iron mixed with the baked clay, [this kingdom] will be mixed with the seed of
men…
They won’t stick to each other, as iron won’t stick to baked clay.’
As you can see, this
kingdom is to be ‘mixed with the seed of mankind.’
Does that mean it was to be
made up of many races?
If so, that well describes the vast British Empire and
its many former colonies, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, etc.
And since each of these former British colonies has claimed their
independence, they haven’t stuck together and they don’t always agree.
The final clue is
the fact that these governments are the last.
So if the prophecy in Daniel
pictures them;
We would assume from the prophecy that God’s Kingdom will soon
‘hit the image on its feet of iron and baked clay and completely shatter them,’
bringing in the long-awaited ‘Kingdom of God.’
The teaching that
people will receive an immediate resurrection into heaven after their deaths is
one of the most common doctrines of modern ‘Christian’ religions.
However,
Jesus (in the Revelation) spoke of the resurrection as happening in ‘the last
day,’ and nowhere did he (or the Bible) say that people have ‘immortal souls’
that immediately speed off to ‘the light’ at their deaths.
Yet, most of these
religions now teach that souls don’t have to wait until the last day for the
resurrection.
Note that Paul spoke
of a similar conclusion that some in the First Century congregations were
teaching at 2 Timothy 2:17, 18, where he wrote:
‘That was the problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus.
They got away from the truth
and started teaching that the resurrection has already happened, which
misdirected the faith of some.’
(For more
information, see the document, the Resurrection.)
The Greek word εν
(en) simply means in.
However, it has been translated as in,
on, among, one, and in union with.
It’s important to understand how
this small word should be properly translated, especially when it’s being used
in the Bible to describe the relationship between God, Jesus, and Jesus’
faithful disciples.
Also notice that
adding an apostrophe (or an ‘h’) to the word (‘εν – hen), slightly
changes its meaning.
We find an example of its use at John 10:30, which
basically says,
‘The father and I are one.’
And though ‘hen’ is about
the same word as ‘en’ (just a slight change in tense), you’ll find that it has
been translated (in the New American Standard Bible, for example) as
One
(282 times), agreement (1), alike (1), alone (3), common (1), detail (1), first
(9), individual (2), individually (1), lone (1), man (1), nothing (1), one
another (1), one man (2), one thing (5), one (2), person (1), single (1),
smallest (1), someone (2), unity (1).
Yes, such a wide
variety of translating is strange, but not uncommon.
For you’ll find
translators doing the same thing to many other Bible words, usually in an
attempt to slant the meanings toward their own religious conclusions.
However, at John
10:30;
Was Jesus really saying that he was one of three personalities of God,
as many teach?
Well, notice how Jesus later used the same word (εν) when
describing his relationship with his disciples (at John 14:20):
‘εγω εν τω πατρι μου και υμεις εν εμοι καγω εν υμιν,’
Or,
‘In that the day you will know that I in (εν) the Father of me, and you in (εν)
me, and I in (εν) you.’
So if what Jesus said
at John 10:30 meant that he is the same person as (or is another personality
that is part of) his Father;
Then what he said as recorded at John 14:20 would
mean that all of Jesus’ followers will become the same person as him and his
Father… thus we would all become Jesus and God!
However, a more logical
conclusion would be that;
As Jesus and his Father are at one in mind and
purpose, the righteous will join them in this perfect union.
(For more
information, see the linked document, ‘Who Was Jesus?’).
The first law that
God gave forbidding incest is found in Leviticus Chapter Eighteen.
Notice
there, that His concern wasn’t just the physical defects that can result from
inbreeding.
Rather, He was concerned about the matter of propriety and showing
respect for your close relatives;
For at Leviticus 18:6-8, we read:
‘No man may approach a close relative and uncover his/her nakedness, for I am
Jehovah.
Don’t uncover your father’s naked [body] or your mother’s naked
[body]… she’s your mother, so don’t [undress] her!
Nor should you uncover the naked [body] of your stepmother,
because [that is the same as
uncovering] your father’s naked [body].’
However, back in the
most ancient times, when there were few humans on the earth, having a sexual
relationship with anyone other than a close relative such as a brother,
sister, or cousin wasn’t even an option, for there were only close relatives.
And in the case of AbraHam, IsaAc, and Jacob, for example;
Marriage to anyone
other than a close relative was considered unwise due to the corrupt practices
of the nations that lived around them.
Therefore, AbraHam married his half
sister, and both IsaAc and Jacob married their first cousins.
(For more
information, see subheading ‘Incest’ in the linked document, ‘Christian Morality’).
The words found at
Matthew 28:19 in other Bibles, ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit,’ are not found in the ancient Shem Tov
(Hebrew) manuscript of Matthew.
And our conclusion is that these words are
spurious (something that was added to the Bible).
For notice how
differently the Disciple Luke described these same
parting words of Jesus at Luke 24:47:
‘Then in (my) name, [the message of] repentance for forgiveness of sins is to
be preached in all the nations, starting from JeruSalem.’
So notice that in Luke’s Gospel there was no mention of baptism, or of ‘the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’
And at Acts 1:8,
Luke wrote that Jesus also said this at his departure:
‘However, you will receive power when the Holy Breath comes over you, and
you’ll be witnesses of me in JeruSalem, in all of Judea, in Samaria, and to the
farthest parts of the earth.’
As you can see;
Luke quoted Jesus as saying something quite different than what is written in
Matthew, before he ascended to heaven, and he didn’t even mention what has
more recently become known as the Trinity formula.
Therefore, we have
to ask:
Why would Luke have missed such a critical detail if Jesus had in fact
said those words, since they are now considered the most important words in
the baptism ceremony?
Understand that the
reason why these words are called the Trinity Formula is because this is
one of just two places in such Bibles as the King James Version that tie the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Ghost) together…
And the only other
mention of them together (at 1 John 5:7, 8) is recognized by most honest Bible
translators as being a later spurious addition to the original Bible text
(See
the Note 1 John 5:7, 8).
Unfortunately, there
are no complete manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew that date back to before
the 4th Century, and all the existing manuscripts that we have today (other
than the Shem Tov) contain this phrase.
However, there is very strong evidence
that those words are a Fourth Century corruption of the original text;
For in his earliest
writings, the ancient Church ‘Bishop’ EuSebius quoted this verse as saying
something quite different.
Some eighteen times between the years 300 and
336-CE, he cited Matthew 28:19, 20 as saying:
‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to
observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’
So, notice that
according to these quotations of Eusebius, there was no mention of being
baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit… in fact, there
was no mention of baptism at all!
Therefore, this gives us even more reason to
believe that the ‘Trinity Formula’ found at Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
Then if this is so, how
could this change have entered the Bible text thereafter?
Well, it’s interesting that the
traditional Trinitarian reading of Matthew 28:19 only appears in EuSebius’
writings after the Council of Nicaea, where the Trinity began to be held as
official Church doctrine.
So, the evidence strongly indicates that the words
were inserted later (by him or by others) in the same way and for the same
reason that 1 John 5:7-8 was changed…
To provide support to the teaching of the
Trinity doctrine.
Who was EuSebius?
He was
one of the most important instigators of change in the early ‘Christian’
religion, since he was the person that had the ear of and who supported the then
pagan Roman Emperor Constantine;
For he helped Constantine to see the political advantages of ending the
persecution of Christians and in establishing Christianity as the official
state religion of Rome.
He was also involved in creating ‘the Council of
Nicaea,’ in which the Trinity was established as official Church doctrine.
So, it is ironic that we only have EuSebius’ earlier quotations of Matthew
28:19, 20 to prove that the current popular rendering is spurious.
However, realize
that this conclusion may cut both ways for some, because;
While it breaks apart
the only other mention of the Trinity trio in the Bible, it does seem to prove what
some Trinitarians have said all along…
That baptisms should only be done in the
name of Jesus.
So, since there is no place in the Bible that says baptizing should be done in the Name of the Father or the Holy Spirit, the only other instructions in the Bible on how to baptize people say this:
· Acts 2:38:
‘Repent and each of you get baptized in the name of Jesus the Anointed One,
so your sins can be forgiven.’
· Acts 8:15, 16:
‘They went [to the Samaritans] and prayed for them to receive the Holy Breath,
because it hadn’t come to any of them yet, although they had been baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus.’
· Acts 10:48:
‘So he commanded that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus the
Anointed One.’
· Acts 19:5:
‘When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’
· Romans 6:3:
‘Don’t you realize that all who were baptized into the Anointed Jesus
were also baptized into his death?’
· Galatians 3:27:
‘All that were baptized into the Anointed One have put on the Anointed
One.’
The simple answer
is:
Yes, Jesus is a god…
That is, if you understand what the word god
means.
This wording may be
a bit difficult to grasp for those of us who were raised in a monotheistic
society where God refers to just One.
However, remember that the Greeks (whose
language we are translating) were a polytheistic society (they worshiped many
gods).
And to them, the word theos (god) was used to describe many
others in their pantheon (all gods), who were viewed as being simply
more powerful than mere mortals.
So understand that to them, theos just meant a powerful one, not the Creator (which is what the Hebrew name Jehovah implies – The One that Causes to Be).
To prove that
translating the word theos as powerful (as we have done at John
1:1) is correct;
Notice how the Bible speaks of the unfaithful messengers of
God as gods at Psalm 82:6, which is the
scripture that Jesus quoted at John 10:34-36), where it says:
‘I said to them, You are gods…
Of the Most High, you are sons!’
Also notice that at
Exodus 7:1, God told Moses:
‘Look! I’ve made you a god to Pharaoh and your brother Aaron is your
Prophet.’
And notice again that just after God gave the IsraElites the ‘Ten Commandments,’
He said this (at Exodus 22:28):
‘You
should never speak badly of your mighty ones (gr. Theous – gods
plural) or say bad things about the rulers of your people.’
So the terms god
and gods just refer to the powerful.
And even men can be gods…
That is,
in the truest sense of the word’s meaning (powerful ones).
Thus, a
word-for-word literal translation of John 1:1 can read:
‘In the beginning was the Word.
The Word was toward the Powerful One, and
powerful was the Word.’
Then, why did we use
the term God rather than Powerful One at John 1:1 to describe The
God?
We’ve left the first term (God) in place, because that’s what people
call the Divine One today.
So is Jesus (the Logos)
The God or just a god (a powerful one)?
From the context of John 1:1, it
appears as though he is theos – powerful – but not The God (gr. ton
Theon).
For notice that Jesus described himself as simply God’s son
(gr. Uios tou Theou eimi – son of/the God I/am) at John 10:36.
Also notice that in the Greek text of John 1:1, the
words Logos (λογος) and Theon (θεον) are both preceded by the
word The (‘ο λογος and τον θεον), except in the case where
the Logos is referred to simply as theos (θεος).
So when
you read this line in Greek, you can clearly see that John was differentiating Jesus
from The God.
For John 1:1, 2, says in Greek:
‘Eν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο
λογος.
Oυτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.’
Or,
‘In ancient/time was the Word and the Word was with The God and god was
the Word.
He/was in ancient/time with (or toward) The God.’
Through the years, we’ve
heard many anti-Trinitarians argue that the reason why John 1:1 reads as it
does, implying to some that there is a Trinity (though only two are described
here), is because there are no indefinite articles in Greek (which is true).
Therefore, they say that ‘the Word’ should be described as ‘a God’ in English
to distinguish him from The God.
Yet, though there is no indefinite article (a), you can see
that the definite article ‘the’ actually appears several times in the Greek
writing of this sentence, though it’s not included in the English rendering by
other Bible translators.
It appears three times before Logos and twice before
God, who is described there (and in most other places throughout the Greek
texts of the Bible) as ‘The God.’
Yet the word ‘the’ is always omitted by other
Bible translators when they translate the two words, ‘τον θεον,’ or, ‘The God.’
So notice that if
John was actually telling us that the Word was the same as The God, he would have written,
‘And the Word was The God.’
Yet he didn’t, because:
Although the word
‘God’ is used as a noun twice in this sentence to describe The God;
Where the
word ‘god’ was used in reference to ‘the Word,’ it was clearly used as an adjective to
describe ‘the Word’ as being god-like in his power.
That the early
Christians didn’t view Jesus as The God is supported by the fact that some of
the Apostles (and many other Christians) still worshiped at the Temple of
Jehovah in JeruSalem until it was destroyed in 70-CE.
(See Acts 3:1-3).
And the reason why they continued to do
this, is because Christian Jews didn’t consider Christianity to be a new
religion that had a new god (Jesus).
But rather, they considered it to be the
natural outgrowth of the old religion, where Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’
or ‘Anointed One of God’ that was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.’
As you can see;
Though Jesus (who is referred to as ‘the Word’ at John 1:1, 2) was called
‘powerful’ (or godlike), the following verses clearly go on to explain that he
wasn’t ‘The God.’
But rather (like Moses), he was a god or powerful one.
(For
more information, see the document, ‘Who Was Jesus?’).
To see how Jesus was described at John 1:1 in the most ancient Coptic texts (where he is described as being ‘a God’), see the link, ‘Coptic John.’
At Isaiah 14:12 we
find a word that is often translated as bright (or shining) one.
But the
words in Hebrew and Aramaic texts are heh-lehl eill, which is a form of
the Hebrew stem yah-lahl ill.
And the meaning of ill is howl!
So,
why has it been translated as bright or shining in almost all
modern texts?
It has been
suggested that the translators of the Septuagint could have overlooked the
smallest of the Hebrew letters or used a copy in which it had been
inadvertently omitted.
And if the form of the word eill (as it occurs in
this particular text) was shortened to ell, its meaning would be
corrupted, which appears to be what happened.
For Kittel’s Hebrew Text reads ah-lahl,
or HOWL.
And notice that the
Hebrew verb eill in Isaiah 14:12 is identical to the word found at
Zechariah 11:2, where the trees are shown to be howling (not bright ones).
For
it says there:
‘And howl, O you oaks of BaShan;
For the groves that you’ve planted have all been cut down.’
So, a correct
translation of Isaiah 14:12 will read:
‘O how you have fallen from the sky;
Shriek, O one that arises at dawn, for you
that [once conquered] all nations, have now been broken to the ground.’
Notice that this
rendering fits the context perfectly;
For the King of Babylon likely shrieked
or howled, as he was broken to the ground.
If you were to ask
most people what the IsraElites had to eat during the forty years that they
trekked in the desert, most would answer ‘manna.’
And as the result, many have
tended to sympathize with the IsraElites who complained that they wanted more
things to eat, because the impression such a conclusion gives is that the only food
God provided for His people at the time was just a prison ration of bread
(manna) and water…
NOT TRUE!
Notice their actual
complaint.
At Numbers 11:4-8 we read:
‘Who is going to give us meat to eat?
We remember all the fish that we used to
eat in Egypt, as well as the cucumbers, melons, leeks, garlic, and onions.
But
now our lives have become [empty], because, all we can see is this manna.’
Was that the true
situation?
Well, remember that the main occupation of these people (and the
main source of their wealth) was their huge flocks and herds of cattle (see
Genesis 46:32 and Exodus 12:38).
So they really had plenty of meat to eat if
they chose.
In fact, most of the meat of the holy sacrifices they were to offer
on sacred occasions was returned to them for their own consumption.
Then, what were they
complaining about?
Well, notice who really started the complaining.
Verse four
says:
‘It was the [gentiles] who were mixed among them that started [complaining].’
So, the instigators
were probably Egyptians and others that weren’t used to a shepherd’s diet.
Rather, what they missed was the markets of Egypt, where a person could go
every day and purchase meats of all sorts and a wide variety of vegetables
(cucumbers, melons, leeks, garlic, and onions).
However, they did have beef,
lamb, and all the miraculous manna that they cared to eat, which was in fact
their primary staple (as bread had always been to the ancients), and it could
be prepared in different ways.
Of course, the
‘meat’ that the gentiles among them seemed to be missing was the large variety
of animals that they used to consume in Egypt prior to the restrictions that
came with God’s Laws.
So, the complaint doesn’t really seem to be that they
didn’t have meat, but rather, that they probably didn’t like the restrictions
that God’s Laws made as to what types of meat they could eat (as well as about
their lack of fresh fish, vegetables, and fruit in the desert).
How did God solve
this problem?
By sending them the ‘meat’ that they asked for in such an abundance
that they virtually became sick of eating it.
Yet, notice that the wild game
that He provided (quail) was still allowed under His Law.
Another common
misunderstanding about this matter is why God thereafter send a plague on the
people for eating the quail.
We have heard many answers to this in past years,
such as, ‘They ate without giving thanks,’ or, ‘They didn’t take time to drain
the blood.’
However, the Bible just doesn’t give us an answer.
All we know is
that ‘greed’ was involved, since that place was thereafter referred to in the
Bible as ‘The Graveyard of the Greedy.’
You might notice,
for example, the quantity of meat that was slaughtered and consumed;
For the
account indicates that the slaughter of the birds was needless and wanton.
There are actually three people spoken of in the Bible as being named James:
· James, the son of AlphaEus (known as, ‘James the Less‘)
· James, the half-brother of Jesus (known as, ‘James the Just‘)
· James, the son of Zebedee.
However, these names are
just the English pronunciations.
Their actual names were Iakobos (Ya-koh-bose),
or Jacob
(James is the Anglicized Greek spelling of Jacob).
We know little about James the son of AlphaEus other than that he was listed (at Mark 3:18) among the Apostles.
James the son of
Zebedee was one of the earliest Apostles of Jesus and the brother of John
(Jesus called the brothers, ‘the sons of thunder’).
He was
martyred about 44-CE.
James (‘the Just’) was a prominent elder in the JeruSalem congregation and he’s thought to have been the writer of the Bible book of James.
At Jude 1:1, James ‘the Just’ was identified as the brother of Jude, and the
two are likely the half-brothers of Jesus through Mary and JoSeph.
Notice that
their names (James and Jude) are mentioned among Jesus’ other family members at
Matthew 13:55, where we read that the people in the synagogue at Nazareth were
saying this about Jesus:
‘Isn’t he the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t his mother called Mary, and aren’t his
brothers James, JoSeph, Simon, and Judas?’
We know that this
James (who likely became a disciple after Jesus’ death) came to hold a
prominent position in the JeruSalem congregation, because he is mentioned as taking
the lead in the declaration that the gentiles would not be required to be
circumcised.
(See Acts 15:13-21).
James was also the
person that took the lead in the meeting with Paul during his last visit to
JeruSalem;
And he’s the one who suggested to Paul that he should go to the Temple and
undergo ritual purification in order to pacify local Christians who were
irritated by the fact that he was teaching gentile Christians that they didn’t
have to be circumcised
(see Acts 21:21-24).
Of
course, when Paul did this, it led to his being beaten by a mob, then arrested,
and later being taken to Rome to stand before Caesar.
So it is clear that at least some in the JeruSalem congregation still didn’t fully understand that the terms of the Old Law had been fulfilled with the death of Jesus, and that circumcision of the flesh was no longer a requirement for Christians under the New Sacred Agreement.
However, this isn’t
the only occasion where this James is mentioned in reference to arguments about
circumcision and the Law.
For at Galatians
2:11-13, he was referred to as the person that sent men from JeruSalem to
AntiOch in order to encourage the Christian Jews there to separate themselves
from the Christian gentiles and to return to following Jewish religious
customs.
Also, according to
history, there appears to have been a sect that emerged among many of the
Jewish Christians around that time, which rejected Paul and his teachings, and
which claimed to follow the teachings of James.
This group, known as the Ebionites, are said to
have held strictly to the Law of Moses.
So, regardless of
the earlier stance of James that seemed to support Paul’s work with the
gentiles;
It appears as though he was a staunch Jewish traditionalist who
didn’t always agree with Paul.
Therefore, though we think of the Bible book of James as being inspired, we really know very little about this man’s faith in his later years.
According to the
Jewish historian JoSephus (in his work, ‘The Antiquities of the Jews’), James
was martyred by the Procurator Porcius Festus about 62-CE.
However, later
(around 248-CE), the Church ‘Father’ Origen related an account of
the death of James, which implies that he actually died during the Roman siege
of Jerusalem.
And if this is true, then James was not numbered among those
Christians that followed Jesus’ instructions to flee JeruSalem when they found
it surrounded by armies.
In the Septuagint
(Greek OT text), JeremiAh 31:37 reads:
‘Tade legei kurion:
‘Ean upsothe ho ourano eisto meteoron,
Kai eantapeinothe to epeinothe tes ges kato,
Ego ouk apodokimo to genos IsraEl, legei Kyrios,
Peri panton on epoieson.’
Or,
‘Thus says the/Lord:
If should/be/raised/up the sky in height,
And/if lowered the floor of/the land below,
I will/not reject the/race of/IsraEl, says the/Lord,’
For all/the/things that they’ve/done.’
However, the Hebrew
text (as translated) reads this way:
‘Thus says the Lord:
If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth
searched out below;
Then I will also cast off all the offspring of IsraEl
for all that they have done, declares the Lord.’
As you can see,
there is a significant difference between the meanings of the two different
text sources.
For the Septuagint says that IsraEl will not be rejected, but the
Hebrew text says that they will be cast off.
Which of the two is right?
Well, verse 36 in
the Greek text provides the answer to the question, for it says there:
‘If these Laws before Me should cease to be,
Then the race of IsraEl will no longer stand
As a nation before Me
Throughout the rest of their days.’
So God is clearly
saying that IsraEl could be rejected.
And as the result, we have deferred to
the conclusion of the Hebrew text and must assume that an early Septuagint
translator simply couldn’t believe that IsraEl might be rejected.
And because
of this, he added the negative word not (ouk) to the sentence.
Then, doesn’t this
error prove the Septuagint to be the inferior text?
No, not necessarily,
because we continually find obvious errors in both (Hebrew and Greek) sources.
And far too often, the Septuagint follows logical reasoning better and it
offers details that are not found in modern Hebrew texts.
So, we tend to trust
the Greek text, while keeping an eye out for errors.
Note that Bibles
based on the Masoretic Hebrew text tell us that when the King NebuChadNezzar
heard that the king of Egypt had sent an army to assist Judah, he lifted the
siege against them temporarily.
However, the Septuagint text of the same verse
indicates that he didn’t lift the siege, but that he thereafter attacked.
Which
rendering is correct?
A reader sent us
this note in support of the Hebrew text that says:
‘So, there was a short interruption of this siege when the Babylonians
(Chaldeans) withdrew in order to drive back the Egyptians to whom King Zedekiah
had appealed for help.
But, after having taken care of this Egyptian threat, the
Babylonians returned and resumed the siege, just as the prophet Jeremiah
forewarned that they would do.’
In other words, they
did attack, but it was after a brief withdrawal.
So, according to this person,
both texts are correct.
Note that a reader
submitted the following to us, where he objected to our rendering of Jesus’
last words before his death (as found at Matthew 27:46).
He points out that the
Greek words, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani’ (that is, ‘My God, my God, why have
You abandoned me?’), are incorrect.
For, an early Christian (Origen) wrote that Matthew
didn’t pen his Gospel in Greek, because he was writing to people whose native
tongue was Aramaic.
And thereafter, the person (or persons) that eventually
translated Matthew from Aramaic into Greek in the early 2nd Century mixed
Hebrew words with Aramaic words when doing the translating.
For he says that
these words of Jesus appear to be a quotation from the prophecy of David found
at Psalm 22:1, and the Hebrew word that is used there, sjebaqtani (or, spared), is not the same
as the word sabachthani (or, abandoned),
which is found in Matthew’s account.
He went on to point
out that if Jesus had said abandoned, he would have said,
‘Eli, Eli,
lema azab-thani?’
So his opinion is that Jesus’ words should really be
translated as, ‘My God, my God, why have You spared me?’…
The point
being, that Jesus was willing to suffer even more, or even as, ‘My God, my God,
for this I was kept,’ or, ‘this was my destiny,’ or, ‘for this
I was born.’
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Psalm 22:1 in the Septuagint (which is the text that Jesus was likely quoting, since
many of his quotations seem to be from the Septuagint) reads in Greek,
‘Inati
egkatelimes me,’
or,
‘Why did/You/abandon me?’
This is why we have allowed
Jesus’ words to remain as they are rendered in most Bibles, for we feel that
the Aramaic text is more likely the one that is corrupted here.
However, we have
included this Note to show you that our choice of wording has been questioned.
Did Jesus have
fleshly brothers and sisters?
Yes, he did, for the words found at Matthew
12:46-50 make this very clear.
There we read that as he was indoors speaking,
his mother (Mary) and his brothers (James, JoSeph, Simon, and Judas) had been
standing outside waiting to talk to him.
And at Acts 1:14, we once again read
of Jesus’ mother and brothers being present (along with his Apostles) shortly
after he ascended to heaven.
So, were these in
fact Jesus’ fleshly brothers, or could the writers have been referring to
‘spiritual’ brothers?
The context in each case provides the answer.
Since
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned as being there along with his Apostles, his
disciples, and his mother (Mary) in the account in Acts;
These had to be his
fleshly (half) brothers (other children of Mary).
Understand that the word
‘Jew’ is a unique English pronunciation of ‘Judean.’
And when Mark and John
spoke of the Judeans, they were usually referring to people that lived in the
Roman Province of Judea.
But, because Jesus and eleven of his Apostles (although
likely all of the Tribe of Judah) lived in the northern Province of Galilee,
the Judeans called them Galileans (see Mark 14:70), while the Galileans
referred to the people in and around JeruSalem as Judeans (or Jews).
With the above said;
It becomes easier to understand what the scriptures mean when they speak of the
water jars at wedding reception at Cana being there for the ‘Judeans’ to wash
in, and that the ‘Judeans’ were looking to kill Jesus, and that the ‘Judeans’
rejected Jesus.
In these cases, the texts aren’t referring to the nation as a
whole, but to the people that lived in Judea and/or in JeruSalem.
Understand that
Jesus was widely recognized as a Prophet and as God’s anointed in Galilee.
However, it was in and around JeruSalem (which was then the center of Jewish
worship and where the leaders of the various Jewish sects were located) that
Jesus was finally rejected and turned over to the Roman governor for execution.
While many Bible
commentators claim that Job was a contemporary of Moses (because Moses is credited
with writing the book), the ancient language used there appears to date the
actual words to sometime before IsraEl’s stay in Egypt…
Possibly between the
time of AbraHam and Jacob.
It is interesting,
however, that one ancient (non-inspired) writing says that the man’s full name
was Jobab, although he was called Job, and that he was a grandson of AbraHam
through IsaAc’s son Esau
(see 1 Chronicles
1:44).
This seems logical, because he was obviously a worshiper of
AbraHam’s God Jehovah.
And because he lived to be two-hundred and forty years
old, he likely lived before Jacob, because life spans had been considerably reduced by Jacob’s time.
Job has often been
described as an oriental, giving us the impression that he was Chinese.
And the
reason for this is that he was said to have been ‘born to a prosperous family
from the sunrise in the east.’
However, saying that he came from the east
doesn’t necessarily mean that he came from thousands of miles to the east.
For
it appears as though his family had likely settled somewhere just east of the
Promised Land, which other Bible texts indicate was where the descendants of
Esau (Edom) settled.
Notice that we read at Lamentations 4:21:
‘So rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom…
The one who in Uz, has resided!’
However,
the Septuagint text says that Job was from the land of the Ausitidi, which
differs from the Hebrew text, where we read that he was from the land of Uz.
Why the difference?
Well, Ausitidi may have been what the place was called in
the Third Century BCE when the Septuagint was translated.
But it is noteworthy
that some Greek texts render the word Uz as Aus;
So, Ausitidi could simply refer
to the people from the land of Aus or Uz.
Where did the name
originate?
Uz could well refer to the land of AbraHam’s nephew Uz, who is
mentioned at Genesis 22:21.
However, there was also a man named Uz who was a
great-grandson of Noah through his son Shem.
But either way, the early settlers
of that land were probably close relatives of AbraHam.
Further proof of
where Job was from comes from the lands where his three ‘comforters’ (who seem
to have been related to AbraHam) lived.
Each of their countries or lands is
located in the SW part of modern Iraq, east of the Promised Land.
Also notice
that the reference to the Jordan River at Job 40:18 indicates the close
proximity of their lands to the Jordan, because it says there:
‘And when it rains, he pays no attention;
For when it runs to the Jordan, he’ll drink it.’
From the poetry of
the verses, you can see that the book of Job was originally a song.
So, some
have questioned whether it is a true story or just an ancient fable.
However,
realize that telling a story in a song is how the ancients in the Middle East
have always communicated their news or history, for this allows the story to be
told accurately and beautifully from memory.
As the result, we have concluded
that;
Although Moses may have written the book of Job, it was likely an inspired
story that was sung and handed down through people of the Middle East for centuries
before Moses recorded it in writing in the Sixteenth Century BCE.
From the context of
the verses in Job, you can see certain subtleties that indicate even the
motivations of the speakers, which proves the authenticity of the story.
Take
for example, the words of EliPhaz the Temanite.
Notice how (as recorded at Job
4:17, 18) it tells us that this man had once been spoken to by a demon that
said:
‘Why should a man be pure before God?
For He trusts none of His servants,
And He thinks of His angels as crooked.’
But then, look at
how these words of a demon had actually influenced this man’s thinking about
God;
For the next time he spoke (at Job 15:15) he said:
‘Yet, He doesn’t trust even the holy…
Before Him, the heavens aren’t pure.’
Such a subtle continuity of arguments where seven or more individuals spoke at different times, indicates that the story is very likely an accurate account of what was actually said.
John (who wrote the
Bible books of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation) was apparently one
of Jesus’ earliest followers.
And though many Bible critics and commentators
have said that John may not have written all the books attributed to him
(because of language and style differences);
Remember that when he did his
writing he was almost 100 years old.
So, like Paul, he likely used others as
secretaries to do the actual writing, and this would explain the variations in
writing styles.
John and his brother James, whom Jesus had appointed to be his Apostles (or Sent Ones), were Galileans (considered ‘country bumpkins’ by people in Judea) who worked as fishermen for their father in a business that seems to have been co-owned by Peter (Simon).
Some Bible critics
have described John as a laid-back dreamer.
However, notice that Jesus referred
to him and his brother as ‘the Sons of Thunder’ (at Mark 3:17).
So, this common
view of John’s passive personality doesn’t seem to be well founded.
It is interesting
that John appears to have been known and liked by the Jewish Chief Priest,
CaiAphas.
For notice what the account at John 18:15, 16 tells us:
‘Now, Simon Peter (and another disciple) followed Jesus.
The Chief Priest
was familiar with that disciple, so he went into the High Priest’s
courtyard along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door.
Then the
disciple that knew the High Priest went outside and spoke to the doorkeeper, and
brought Peter in.’
Therefore, many of
the things that happened and were said inside the Chief Priest’s house (as well
as in the palaces of Pilate and Herod after Jesus’ arrest) may have come to us
as the result of John being there and serving as an eyewitness.
So, Peter
wasn’t the only disciple that stayed with Jesus after his arrest.
It’s a fact that
whenever Peter and John were together, as when they stood before the Jewish
High Court, Peter did most of the talking.
However, this doesn’t appear to mean
that Peter outranked John, or because John was tongue-tied or shy.
Rather, it
seems as though John deferred to Peter because he was older and a friend and
business partner of his father.
As Jesus prophesied;
John appears to have lived the longest of all the Apostles, dying at around the
age of 100, either by execution or as the result of old age or poor health
(from his long stay in an ancient prison).
And it’s thought that it was shortly
before his death that he did all his writing.
So, the book of John is quite
different in its format from the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which seem to be
more based on and influenced by the book of Matthew.
For this reason, the Gospel
of John provides us a far greater insight into who Jesus actually was, and of
the things that he thought and did.
John was obviously
very impressed with the privilege he had of being ‘the loved Apostle’ of the
most important individual that ever walked this earth.
So the opening words of
the book of John reflect that awe, as he poetically tried to impress us with
the full meaning of who Jesus had been in his pre-human life as ‘the
one-and-only’ son of The God.
John’s three epistles
or letters (1 John, 2 John, and 3 John) were written to nearby congregations
while he was in prison in Asia Minor, to warn them of the dangers that they
were facing from within their own ranks, since ‘the great turning away’ that
Paul had foretold was already in progress.
In fact, some may even have started
to deny that Jesus was the ‘Anointed One,’ or perhaps that there ever was a
Jesus.
For John labeled such ones as the ‘Anti/christs,’ and he told Christians
not to have anything to do with them.
In John’s
Revelation, he recorded a vision of ‘the Lord’s Day,’ which he received from
God through Jesus.
And though some critics have concluded that this was some
sort of hallucination;
The Revelation provides a fitting climax to the entire
Bible by bringing together the four mysterious characters mentioned in the
first Bible prophecy (Genesis 3:16) about the snake, its seed, the woman, and
her seed.
There it fills in all the gray areas as to whom each of these
individuals would prove to be, and it shows the full meaning of the roles they
would play in God’s purposes.
So, far from being a hallucination;
The Revelation explains in detail what is
really happening to us today, what will soon happen, and what hope there is for
all obedient mankind.
(For more information, see the linked document, ‘The Seed – God’s Kingdom.’)
We have noted that
some ‘Bible scholars’ have concluded that John’s Bible books were really
written by three different people…
One who wrote the book of John, one who wrote
the epistles, and a third one who wrote the Revelation.
Part of the reason for
this conclusion is that John didn’t identify himself by name in the books
bearing his name, but he mentioned his name frequently in the Revelation.
However, the common words that are used in each of the writings clearly
identify John as their author, and they show that each of the works were
written at about the same time.
For example;
The
unique description of Jesus as the Word at John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13
(a word that the other Gospel writers didn’t use to describe Jesus), ties both
of those writings to the same John.
Also, there are a number of similar words
and phrases found in the book of John and his epistles that show they were
written by the same person.
So, it is clear to these translators that John was
responsible for the writing of all five of the books attributed to him.
The scripture found
at 1 Corinthians 6:3
(‘Don’t you know that we are going to judge angels?’)
is
often used to prove that those that are chosen for heavenly life as God’s sons
will be elevated above all of God’s messengers (his other heavenly sons, or
angels), except Jesus.
Is this a correct understanding?
Perhaps not.
Consider
these facts:
1. At Luke 20:36 we read:
‘Though the sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, those that have
been found worthy of that age and the resurrection from the dead won’t marry or
be given in marriage, nor can they die anymore;
For they’ll have the power of the angels,
since, as sons of the resurrection, they [will also be] sons of God.’
2. Revelation 5:10 says:
‘Then you made them rulers and Priests to our God, and they will rule as kings on
(gr. epi) the earth.’
So, if they are just to have the power of God’s messengers and their rulership is to be just on the earth, then why are they described as judging God’s messengers (or angels) at 1 Corinthians 6:3?
Well, notice that the Greek word crinoumen
(which is translated as ‘judge’ there) can also mean condemn.
And since the heavens are to be
cleansed of wicked messengers (see Revelation 12:7-9);
We must conclude that
the messengers they are to judge or condemn are the same ones that will be
thrown out of heaven and temporarily confined to the earth before they are
locked in the abyss and thereafter destroyed (see Revelation 12:9).
At Matthew 19:27,
Peter said to Jesus:
‘We have left everything and followed you.
So, what will we really get?’
And in verse 28,
Jesus replied:
‘I tell you the truth; in the rebirth, when the Son of Man sits down on his
glorious throne;
You who have followed me will sit on twelve thrones to judge
the twelve tribes of IsraEl.’
What was Jesus talking about here?
Well, another
written Bible commentary on this scripture tells us that Jesus was promising
his Apostles the same thing that Paul spoke of at 1 Corinthians 6:2 where he
wrote,
‘Don’t you know that the Holy Ones will judge the world?’
But
this doesn’t really make much sense, because the term ‘IsraEl’ usually refers
to those in a covenant relationship with God, while the Greek word ‘kosmos’
(which is translated as ‘world’ here) is usually used to describe those that are
not in such a relationship.
So it is clear that these two judgments don’t mean the same thing.
But then;
Couldn’t Jesus
have meant that his Apostles were going to judge the literal nation of IsraEl?
Well, that isn’t
likely either, because only a small portion of that nation can still be
identified today, since the original tribes have for the most part been
scattered and interbred among all the nations of the earth.
Therefore, there
really are no pure ‘twelve tribes of IsraEl’ anymore, since a large portion of
the population of the earth can also claim some roots in IsraEl.
However, note what
Paul told us at Romans 9:6:
‘Not all that came from IsraEl are really IsraEl, nor are all of AbraHam’s seed
his children.’
Then he went on to describe faithful Christians (whether Jews or gentiles) as
the true IsraEl.
So, perhaps judging the twelve tribes of IsraEl means that they are to judge all that claim to be Christians.
At Romans 2:1, Paul
wrote:
‘So, you are defenseless, O man, if you’re someone that judges others;
Because,
when you judge others you’re condemning yourselves, since you’re doing the very
same things that you judge [to be wrong in them].’
Then he wrote at
Romans 14:10-12:
‘So, why do you judge your brother, or why do you look down on him?
We will all
stand before the judgment seat of God, for it’s written:
‘As I live,
says Jehovah;
Every knee will bend before Me and every tongue will confess
before God.
So, since each of us must answer for ourselves before God;
Let’s
stop judging each other.’
As you can see;
Being too judgmental is a very serious flaw, which is common among those who
think of themselves as righteous.
And notice what Jesus said would happen to
those that are judgmental (Matthew 7:1):
‘Do not judge others, so you won’t be judged.
For the [rules] by which you judge others,
Are the rules they will use to judge you,
And the standards you’re setting for them,
Are the standards that they’ll set for you.
We find the same
type of warning at James 2:13, which says:
‘The merciless will be judged without mercy, since mercy is an important part
of justice.’
But on the other hand;
The Bible also shows that it is necessary for Christians to judge their
brothers that are guilty of flagrant, open sins, as was the case of a brother in
the First-Century Christian Congregation in Corinth, Greece.
For Paul wrote at
1 Corinthians 5:1:
‘I’ve actually heard that there is sexual immorality among you, and it’s a type
of immorality that isn’t even [heard of] among the nations…
That someone has
taken his father’s woman!’
Now, we don’t know
exactly what this sin entailed (whether it was incest or a relationship with a
woman that wasn’t his natural mother), but we do know that it was something
scandalous.
So Paul told the elders in the congregation there that they should
pass judgment on the man’s actions.
Notice his reasoning, as found at 1 Corinthians
5:12:
‘Why should I judge those on the outside?
Don’t you judge those on the inside
while God judges those on the outside?
Remove the wicked man from among
yourselves!’
So the conclusion
we reach from the Scriptures is that judging the openly-wrong actions of others
is the responsibility of Christian elders, in order to protect the good name of
the Congregation.
However, it is wrong to judge the motives of others, because
we can’t look into their hearts.
Therefore, if we
ever find ourselves looking down on our brothers and thinking ourselves to be
better Christians than they are;
Then the high standards that we set for them
may become the standards that will be set for us in our own judgment before
God.
And if we aren’t merciful in our judgments of others, God won’t be
merciful in His judgment of us.
Throughout the Bible,
we read that a ‘Judgment Day’ will eventually arrive when God will judge every
person.
And this raises the question:
Does this refer to random times in the
future when we each will meet our own judgment (as at our deaths), or is it
saying that there will be one specific ‘day’ (or period) when everyone will be
judged?
Well, notice what
Jesus told his Apostles as recorded at Matthew 10:14, 15:
‘Wherever people don’t take you in or listen to your words;
On leaving that
house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
I tell you the truth;
On
the Judgment Day, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and
GomorRah than for that city.’
So, it seems clear
that God will judge all mankind at some specific time in the future when all
the dead will be resurrected, which He calls ‘the Judgment Day.’
We read of
this ‘day’ at Revelation 20:13, where we are told:
‘Then the sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up the dead in
them, and all [the dead] were judged by the things they had done.’
Note that we have
added the name Kainan (Cainan) in brackets to the genealogies of 1 Chronicles
1:24, as well as words indicating whose son he was, because his name is found
in the same genealogies at Genesis 11:12, 13
in the Septuagint and at Luke 3:36 in all Bibles.
However, his name is not found in Genesis in the Masoretic (Hebrew) text or in First
Chronicles in either the Septuagint or the Masoretic text, which we feel is
likely a deliberate omission by the Masoretic scribes that appear to have made
several changes to the genealogies that are found in Genesis the 5th and 11th
Chapters.
So there is either
an error in the Hebrew text at Genesis 11:12, 13 that is corrected in the
Septuagint and reiterated by Luke;
Or,
The Septuagint adds an extra name there that Luke also mistakenly included
because he was using the Septuagint text as a reference.
Which of these
conclusions is true?
We believe that the name should be in both (the Genesis
and the First Chronicles) accounts, because we trust the research and
inspiration of Luke, and because we have found several other errors in the
Masoretic texts of Genesis Chapters 5 and 11.
Of course, there was
another man named Kainan who is listed in the line between Adam and Noah (at
Genesis 5:12, 13), and this is probably why the Masoretic scribes deleted the
same name in Genesis 11.
For they likely they thought that there was a mistake
in the original text, since both men are said to have fathered sons when they
were one-hundred and thirty years old.
Yet, note that the life-spans of each of
these Kainans are different…
Therefore, we have concluded that there were two
men in the line that led to AbraHam that had the same name and that happened to
father sons at the same age (both obviously fathered many sons during their
lifetimes).
On the other hand;
Notice that the Septuagint text of First Chronicles Chapter One is clearly
incomplete, with verses eighteen through twenty-three simply missing.
Also, the
descriptions of the relationships of the line from Shem to AbraHam is
missing, which we again added in brackets.
So, here is one case where we
recognize that a portion of the Septuagint text has in fact been corrupted, and we
therefore deferred to the genealogy as it is found in Genesis and in the Gospel of Luke.
In recent years,
many Christians have started arguing against putting murderers to death, and
they often quote the words of God as found at Exodus 20:13, which (according to
the King James Bible) say,
‘Thou shalt not kill.’
However, that is a wrong
translation of what God actually said.
For the Greek word phoneuseis
that is used there should
actually be translated as murder.
Then, notice what
God’s ancient Law says should be done to murderers, as recorded at Exodus
21:12.
In Greek it says:
‘Thananato thanatoustho,’
or,
‘To/death let/him/be/put/to/death!’
So, God’s Law actually says very emphatically that murderers should be put to death.
The word Kingdom is translated from the Greek word basileia, which refers to the realm of a king (gr. basil).
A common belief that
many Christians have about the Kingdom of God is that it’s just a state of mind
and heart.
They draw this conclusion from what Jesus said, as found at Luke
17:21.
For according to the Greek text, he said:
‘He basileia tou Theou entos hymon estin,’
Or,
‘The Kingdom of the God in you is.’
So, was Jesus saying that God’s Kingdom will never be a real government, and it’s just something that we hold within ourselves?
Well, the conclusion
that some have reached about this is that Jesus was saying that he (the king of
that Kingdom) was there in their midst…
And that could have been what he meant.
However, recognize that true Christians must live by the laws
of God’s Kingdom first and foremost.
Therefore, the Kingdom of God should also be within us!
But either way;
It
doesn’t appear as though Jesus was saying in this instance that the Kingdom
will always be just a state of mind.
For, notice what Jesus said about his
Kingdom (at Luke 22:16) after eating his ‘last supper’ with his disciples:
‘I won’t eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.’
So, he was clearly saying that the Kingdom of God was to be a future thing and it is not just a frame of mind.
Then, is this
Kingdom something that will exist just in heaven?
This is what many have
concluded from what Jesus said at Matthew 8:11, where he is quoted as saying:
‘Many from the sunrise and sunset will come and recline with AbraHam, IsaAc,
and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.’
So on the basis of this scripture, they have concluded that AbraHam, IsaAc, and Jacob are now in heaven, and that’s where God’s Kingdom is located.
However, notice that
these patriarchs weren’t really in heaven at the time that Jesus spoke those
words…
They couldn’t have been, for Jesus himself said at John 3:13:
‘No one has gone to heaven other than the one that came from heaven, the
Son of Man.’
So, why did Jesus
say that those men were in heaven?
Well, it appears as though those weren’t his
exact words.
Please consider the following:
According to the Christian writer Origen (who wrote during the
early 3rd Century C.E.), Matthew’s Gospel account was originally written in
Hebrew and then it was translated into Greek.
However, the Greek copy was
thereafter lost.
So it was translated into Greek a second time around the
beginning of the 2nd Century.
Therefore, according
to this ancient Christian writer (Origen), the text that we have of Matthew
today comes from this later Greek translation.
And the reason why we are
pointing this out is that the book of Matthew shows signs of significant
textual corruption that likely came about during this Second-Century
translating attempt!
Notice, for example,
that the words ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ are not found at all in the Gospels of Mark
and Luke (which appear to have originally been written in Greek), even where these
Gospels were quoting the very same words of Jesus that are found in the Gospel
of Matthew!
Rather, Mark and Luke wrote that Jesus actually said, ‘Kingdom
of God,’ not ‘Kingdom of heaven.’
So, since we know
that our modern text of Matthew’s Gospel was just a later translation of what
Jesus actually said;
We have chosen to put more trust in what the other Gospel
writers wrote in their Greek texts wherever we find contradictions (and we have
found several).
However, does the
mistranslation of that one word (‘heaven’ instead of ‘God’) really make much
difference?
Yes, because the words ‘Kingdom of God’ don’t necessarily imply
that the Kingdom is something that is just in heaven!
Rather, notice where
it was that Jesus’ followers really expected the Kingdom to be established (just
before his death).
At Luke 19:11 we read:
‘While they were listening to these things, [Jesus] told them another
illustration, because he was getting close to JeruSalem, and they all
thought that the Kingdom of God was about to happen instantly.’
So from these words;
It is clear Jesus’ Apostles believed that the Kingdom was going to be
established then and there in ancient earthly JeruSalem.
For, notice what they
asked Jesus just before he ascended into heaven (as recorded at Acts 1:6):
‘Lord, are you going to restore the Kingdom to IsraEl now?’
As you can see;
Back
in the First Century, Jesus’ Disciples weren’t looking for a ‘Kingdom of
Heaven’ or for a Kingdom that would just be in their hearts.
Rather, they were
expecting the Kingdom of IsraEl to be re-established here on the earth with
Jesus ruling as king from the literal City of JeruSalem.
However by the end
of the 1st Century, as Christians became discouraged after the deaths of the
Apostles, it seems as though many had started to believe that the Kingdom was actually
going to be in heaven, since it hadn’t come on the earth.
So, like the pagan peoples around them;
They started to
teach that the Kingdom is the place where people go immediately after they die!
Therefore, it is
easy to see why those later Christians that translated the book of Matthew from
Hebrew into Greek changed the words ‘Kingdom of God’ to read ‘Kingdom of
Heaven.’
For, this is what many ‘Christians’ had started to believe was their
eventual destiny by the beginning of the Second Century CE.
Yet if the Kingdom
of God is really something that is going to rule the earth;
You might wonder
why it hasn’t happened already, since it has been almost two-thousand years
since he said that we should expect its arrival.
Notice that Jesus actually
gave us an answer to this.
For he gave a parable (that is found at Luke
19:12-27), where he spoke about a man that would be going on a long trip to a
distant land to receive his appointment as king.
And clearly, the point of this
parable was that he (Jesus) was to be going on a journey to receive his
kingship, and that this would take a long time.
Then, upon his return, he would
reward his faithful slaves, and he would punish those that didn’t want him to be
their king.
When would this return
happen?
Well, he didn’t tell us when in his parable.
However, notice what
Revelation 12:10 (which was written about the beginning of the Second Century) says
would happen when he actually returns:
‘At that I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
Now has arrived the salvation and power,
As well as the Kingdom of our God;
For His Anointed has now been empowered,
And the accuser of our brothers has been cast down,
Who blames them before God day and night!’
So we can see that
the distant place where Jesus went to receive his authority to be king is in
the heavens.
And thereafter, according to the Revelation, Jesus will return to
establish his Kingdom here on the earth…
Which hasn’t happened yet, because we
clearly have not yet entered ‘the Day of the Lord’ (the return).
For, this is
what the entire book of Revelation was foretelling (see Revelation 1:10).
Then,
what is the Kingdom?
Well, though it is true that Christians may now actually
live under the rulership of Jesus in their hearts;
The Scriptures show that
there is to be a future period of eternal righteous rule that will encompass
‘the lands and the skies’ (the universe) after the evil one is no longer
allowed access to the presence of God
(see Job 1:6)
and after all opposition to Jesus’ rule has been removed from the earth.
(For
more information, see the linked document, ‘The Seed –
God’s Kingdom’).
While many like to
scoff at the Bible record and claim that its stories are myths and fairy tales,
much of what is written there has already been proven remarkably accurate and
historical by modern archeology.
For example;
Consider the events that are
recorded to have happened in JeruSalem during the reign of King HezekiAh.
At 2
Chronicles 32:9, we read of how the Assyrian King Sennacherib marched on
the Judean city of Lachish before attacking JeruSalem.
And today, letters about this attack
from the general that was defending Lachish have been discovered and are on
display in the British Museum.
Also, the mention of
HezekiAh’s rerouting of the spring of Gihon at 2 Chronicles 32:30 can be proven, since
the underground diversion project has been uncovered by archeologists and is a
famed tourist attraction in JeruSalem today.
(See the reference, ‘Hezekiah’s Tunnel’).
However, did God’s
messenger wipe out the Assyrian army in a single night, as the Bible account
says?
While there’s no record of this outside of the Bible (the Assyrians
surely would have been too embarrassed to record such an amazing defeat);
The
fact that Babylon thereafter became the dominant world power with little
resistance from the Assyrians, gives mute testimony to the fact that something
very important happened then.
The Lake of fire,
which is spoken of in the Revelation, is taught by many religions to be the
same as Hell Fire.
However, notice that what many Bibles call ‘Hell’ will
actually be thrown into this lake (so they obviously can’t be the same thing).
Also, notice the definition of what the lake of fire is according to the King
James Bible’s reading at Revelation 20:14:
‘And death and hell
were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death.’
So, what is the
Lake of Fire?
As the scripture says, it is ‘the second death.’
And what
does that mean?
Death is the end of life, and fire destroys.
Therefore, things
that are thrown there will be burned up and gone forever.
But if that is so, then why are those that go there spoken of as being tortured through the ages (as we read at Revelation 20:10)?
To understand why these terms were used, you must first understand what the word we’ve translated as torture (βασανίζω) really meant to ancient peoples.
In Bible times,
jailers were called torturers, not necessarily because they performed
physical acts of torture (though they often did), but because being locked away
in jails (or dungeons) is itself a form of torture.
And this is what the Bible
means when it says that someone or something is thrown into the ‘lake of fire.’
Since symbolic things such as governments, religions, the Slanderer, and even
death and the grave are thrown there;
The ‘torture’ doesn’t imply experiencing
literal pain, but that they will be locked away (gone) forever.
Notice what was
represented by the lampstands in the Revelation. Revelation 1:20 says:
‘The seven lampstands signify the seven congregations.’
So, these lampstands
must picture callings or groups of Christians.
And where a lampstand is spoken
of as being ‘removed’ (as at Revelation 2:5), this appears to indicate that the
group or gathering will be removed from its position of favor.
At Genesis 46:28,
the Greek Septuagint text says that when the Patriarch Jacob traveled to Egypt
during the great famine that raged ‘throughout the earth;’
During his time, he
arranged to meet with his son JoSeph near the City of HroOn (modern Mit
El-Harun) in the land of Ramesse.
However, note that the Hebrew (Masoretic)
text says they met in the land of Goshen.
Then at Genesis 47:1, the Septuagint
text refers to the land where the IsraElites thereafter settled as ‘Gesem,’
which the Hebrew text once again calls ‘Goshen.’
Also, at Exodus 1:5
in the Septuagint, we see that this land (Gesem, Goshen, or Ramesse) seems to
have been considered as being separate from Egypt, for it speaks of Joseph as
living apart from his family ‘in Egypt.’
And at Genesis 45:10, Gesem is
referred as being located in Arabia.
Therefore, from these renderings, we must
assume that the names Gesem, Goshen, and the land of Ramesse all refer to the
same area, which is found in the eastern portion of the Nile Delta.
And though
that location is considered part of Egypt today, it was viewed as being part
of Arabia in the time of Jacob and JoSeph (remember that there was no Suez
Canal back then).
Of course, there has
been much discussion through the years over the fact that the Bible speaks of
the land where IsraEl settled in Egypt as ‘the land of RaMesse’ (Ra’s Chosen),
and that one of the cities that the king of Egypt built before Moses was born,
was also called Ramesse (see Exodus 1:11).
For, since this name appears to refer
to Ramesses The Great
who lived almost three-hundred years after IsraEl left Egypt;
It has been
assumed that either the Bible accounts are wrong, or that the events mentioned
in the Exodus happened at a much later date.
However, understand
that the likely reason why the land and the city are referred to in the Bible
as Ramesse, is that later copyists used more modern names for the location so that
contemporary readers would understand which land and city it was speaking of
during their time.
And because we find the Septuagint using the term Ramesse
first at Genesis 46:28, it looks like the change in name came about around the
time that the Septuagint was translated (3rd Century BCE).
You can see that Moses did the same thing in Genesis 2:8-13, when he used the
landmarks of his time to describe the location of the original garden (‘Eden’)
where Adam and Eue (Eve) first lived.
Who are the people
that are described at Revelation 7:9 as being, ‘a crowd so large that nobody
could count them’ that come from ‘all countries, nationalities, ethnic groups,
and languages… ’
And are found ‘standing in front of the throne and in front of
the Lamb?’
Notice that they
aren’t the same as the 144,000 ‘slaves of our God’ (as described in verses
3-8), nor do they seem to comprise the IsraEl from whom this first group is
chosen (as mentioned in those same verses);
For the large crowd was seen
by John after he saw the first two groups (IsraEl and those chosen from IsraEl) in the Revelation vision.
Then Revelation
7:14-17 goes on to tell us concerning this larger group:
‘They’re the ones
that have come out of the great time of difficulty and that have washed their
robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
This is why they’re under
the gaze of the throne of The God, serving Him day and night in His Most Holy
Place.
And the One that is sitting on the throne will spread His tent over them
so they won’t be hungry or thirsty anymore, nor will the sun beat down on them
with blistering heat;
For, the Lamb that is in the middle of the throne will
shepherd them and guide them to the springs of the waters of life, and The God
will wipe all the tears from their eyes.’
So, since those in this huge
group have ‘washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,’
the scripture seems to imply that they will have cleaned up their lives and
gotten baptized.
Also notice that they will have lived through the great time of difficulty, which (in the order of
the Revelation) precedes the destruction of The Great Babylon and the Battle
of Armageddon.
However, the fact
that they are spoken of as coming from among the ‘nations, ‘gentiles,’ or
‘ethnics,’ appears to indicate that they have not been chosen from among the IsraEl of God
(those in a covenant relationship
with Him, possibly those from Judaic and Christian religions).
Therefore, this
could describe non-religious peoples or those with pagan religious backgrounds.
Then Revelation
Chapter Seven says they are shouting,
‘We owe our salvation to our God that is
sitting on the throne and to the Lamb.’
And because they are seen standing ‘under the gaze of the throne’
(not in the presence of God and Jesus), they will have likely continued to live
here on the earth.
For, being ‘guided to the fountains of waters of life’ seems
to indicate that their names have not yet been written in the Scroll of Life.
And while we have
not necessarily concluded that they are part of the same group that Jesus
described at Matthew 25:31-46 as ‘sheep’
(since we question whether that
account has been badly corrupted);
There do seem to be some similarities…
if that account can truly be trusted.
For, notice what Jesus said concerning
the sheep in verses 32-34:
‘All the nations
(gr. ethnics) will be led before him, then he’ll separate the people as a
shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He’ll put the sheep on his right,
but the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right:
Come,
you who’ve been praised by my Father;
Inherit the Kingdom that’s been prepared
for you since the founding of the arrangement.’
Throughout the
Christian Era Scriptures (New Testament), we read of a time that is referred to
as ‘the last days’ (gr. tas hemera eschata).
So, notice how Peter used these
words as he quoted them from the prophecy of Joel, when he was explaining all the
miraculous things that were happening after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
(or Breath) on the day of Pentecost in 33-CE (at found at Acts 2:17-21):
‘In the last days,
says The God;
I will pour out My Breath on all flesh,
And your sons and daughters will then prophesy;
Your young men will also have visions,
And the old among you will [see things in] dreams.
‘Yes, even upon My male servants
And on those who are My handmaidens,
I will pour out My Breath in those days,
And all will then prophesy.
‘From the skies above, I’ll send omens and signs
With blood, fire, and smoke to the earth down below,
Before the great shining day of the Lord.
‘For the sun will be changed into darkness
And the moon will be changed into blood.
Then, all of those will be saved
Who have called on the name of the Lord.’
So from Peter’s
application of these words, we can clearly see that the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled
(at least initially) at the time that Peter was saying this…
During and after
Pentecost 33-CE.
However, it is possible that Joel’s prophecy concerning the
last days may not have only applied to the last days of ancient JeruSalem
before its destruction by Roman armies in 70-CE.
For, where these same words
(last days) are found in other Bible verses, most Christian religions teach
that the fulfillment will come during a future ‘Day of the Lord.’
For example;
Notice
the words found at 2 Timothy 3:1-5:
‘Recognize that the last days will bring fierce times.
For people will just
love themselves and money.
They’ll be braggarts, arrogant blasphemers,
disobedient to their parents, unthankful, and disloyal.
They won’t have any
natural (family) love, and they they’ll be disagreeable.
They’ll be slanderers
that don’t have any self-control, and they’ll be wild people that won’t love
anything that’s good.
They’ll also be betrayers that are headstrong and proud,
and that care more for pleasures than for God.
So although they may practice some
form of religion, they’ll deny its power.’
Therefore, though the prophecy
of Joel about the last days does in fact apply to what was happening among
Christians during the period between Pentecost of 33-CE and 70-CE
(since Peter
applied it that way, and it did lead up to the destruction of JeruSalem),
his
prophecy could also refer to some future last days that are yet to come
upon the whole earth.
That a future ‘last
days’ will come, seems to be indicated by Jesus’ words at John 6:39, 40, where
it’s recorded that he said:
‘And this is what His Will is:
That I shouldn’t lose any of those whom He has
given to me, but that I should resurrect them on the Last Day.
Yes, it
is the Will of my Father that everyone who pays close attention to the Son and
believes in him should have age-long life.
For, I will resurrect him… [yes]
me, on the Last Day!’
So, since there is
no record of many faithful Christians being resurrected on or after Pentecost
in the 1st Century;
We must assume that the ‘last days’ that were spoken of by
Jesus haven’t arrived yet.
Also note that some
sixty or more years after that time, John wrote in the Revelation that the
resurrections wouldn’t start until after ‘the battle of Armageddon’ (mentioned
at Revelation 16) is fought.
And from this, it appears as though there have
been and will be at least two last days:
1. The last days of ancient JeruSalem
2. Some future last days that will lead up to or follow the second coming of
Jesus.
Therefore, if there
are yet to be some future ‘last days’ that will arrive for this earth, and the
prophecy of Joel will in fact see a much greater fulfillment;
This must also
include an outpouring of God’s Holy Breath and a manifestation of its gifts,
much the same as were seen on Pentecost of 33-CE…
For this would also be
required to fulfill the prophecy.
Of course, we
realize that some religions are teaching that we are already in the last days,
and some are claiming that their members already have these gifts.
However,
there are problems with these claims.
Notice that these
‘gifts’ that people claim to have seem to be manifested through healing, snake
handling, and speaking in tongues…
Yet, none of these things were mentioned in
Joel’s prophecy.
Rather, it says there that God’s servants will be having
prophetic visions, dreams, and that they would be speaking prophecies (we have
heard of no great prophecies coming from them).
Also notice that
Paul, when speaking of such gifts at 1 Corinthians Chapters 12, 13, 14,
actually discouraged speaking in tongues.
Rather, he said that they should
cultivate the gift of prophesying and that they should develop Christian love.
Yes, it is a fact
that Peter and Paul actually did perform divine healing back then, and it
appears as though both even performed resurrections!
Yet, notice that these
gifts were unusual, and they weren’t mentioned at all in Joel’s prophecy.
So if there is to
be some modern fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy;
We would expect it to involve
miraculous prophesying (which is something more than just sharing our personal
interpretations of Bible doctrines) and an unusual outpouring of brotherly love
upon all those that are truly trying to live as Christians.
(For more
information, see also the linked documents, ‘The Last
Days,’ and ‘The Powers of God’s Holy Spirit’).
The Twenty-Ninth
Chapter of Exodus talks about a calf and two lambs that had to be sacrificed as
a rite of empowerment of Aaron and his sons in order for them to become the
Anointed Priests.
And we have referred to the sacrificing of the last lamb as
just that… ‘the last lamb.’
However, other Bibles refer to this sacrifice as
‘the Sacrifice of Consecration,’ or ‘the Ram of Installation.’
So, why have we
deviated in our rendering of this term?
In Greek, the words kriou
teleioseos simply mean lamb final.
And this particular lamb was for
a fact the last to be offered during that seven-day event.
So we feel that the
term ‘last lamb’ more accurately reflects the words as they are found in the
Greek Septuagint.
We find a very
important Septuagint deviation from what the Hebrew text says at 1 Kings 6:1.
For there the Greek text reads:
‘It was in the four hundred and fortieth year
after the sons IsraEl left Egypt (in the fourth year and second month of
Solomon’s reign over IsraEl) that the foundation of the Temple of Jehovah was
laid.’
What is wrong with
this?
In the Hebrew text, we find that the foundation of the Temple was laid
four hundred and EIGHTY years after the exodus from Egypt.
So, which is the
correct rendering?
Well, our study of
the period from IsraEl’s entry into the promised land – from the period of the
judges to the start of the reign of King Saul (as
shown in the books of Judges and 1 Samuel) – seems to have been about 400
years.
Then if we add the 40 years of Saul’s rule and the 40 years of David’s
rule, you can see that there had to be at least 480-years between the time of
the exodus and the laying of the Temple foundation by David’s son Solomon.
So our conclusion
is that the Greek text is probably wrong in this instance and the Hebrew
(Masoretic) text is most likely correct.
It also appears as though this
480-year period may not have actually started with the Exodus, but with IsraEl’s
entry into the Promised Land!
(For more information on why we are saying this,
see the subheading ‘Possible Chronology’ in the linked document, ‘The Pharaoh of the Exodus.’)
It is interesting
that the disease we call leprosy today doesn’t seem to be the same as
what was called leprosy in the Bible.
While modern leprosy may appear to be the
same, since the skin turns white and it is extremely debilitating, there are
some major differences.
For example;
Ancient leprosy seemed to have been
extremely contagious, so people that had it weren’t allowed to approach those
that were healthy, while modern leprosy is listed as only ‘mildly contagious.’
Another difference
is that the white skin coloration for modern leprosy comes from external skin
scaling, while the Bible’s description of leprosy was of a whiteness (or
redness) that was internal or deep into the skin, and it caused hollow spots
under the skin.
Also notice that once a person’s skin had turned completely
white, God’s Law no longer considered the disease to be contagious (see Leviticus 13:12-17).
Medical descriptions
of modern leprosy say that it comes as the result of a bacterial infection.
And
while this may also have been true of ancient leprosy (in fact, it could have
come from a bacteria that people have become largely immune to today);
The fact
that it could be found in clothing and leather goods, and that it was so hard
to kill by washing, suggests that Bible leprosy may have been caused by a mold
or fungus.
It would seem
unlikely in the dry climate of Palestine that clothing in particular would
develop bacterial infections, unless they were extremely dirty, which is
doubtful, knowing the IsraElite view of cleanliness.
However, mold can grow
almost anywhere, and it is extremely hard to destroy.
The fact that ancient
leprosy grew on walls in Bible times seems to indicate that it was a type of
mold.
Of interest are the
descriptions about where and how leprosy developed in Bible times.
Notice that
it often started in wounds, sores, or in the hairline.
And the fact that it was
found on clothing (which was usually damp due to sweating in the arid climate)
indicates that the disease was spread by close and prolonged contact with skin
or through abrasions.
However, modern Bedouins no longer seem to be plagued by
this malady.
The fact that the
bacteria, mold, or fungus was carried and transmitted from clothing and hair
seems to be quietly affirmed by the fact that there is no mention of the
disease attacking the genitals…
Which would normally be expected today, due the
common use of tight-fitting underwear.
Why not?
Well, the ancient IsraElites
apparently didn’t wear underpants.
The fact that such things had to be specifically
made for those that served in Jehovah’s Temple, indicates that they weren’t
customary.
Another interesting
fact about the leprosy of Bible times, is that people who suffered from it
could eventually (or even spontaneously) get over it without a need for modern
antibiotics or treatments.
The fact that Leviticus Chapter Fourteen gives
extensive rules for the cleansing and repatriating of those that became well,
indicates that this may have been a fairly common occurrence.
We learn an
interesting lesson about humility from the words and actions of MichaEl (God’s ArchAngel
or Highest Messenger), as found at Jude 9.
For there it says (when
speaking of the battle he waged with the Slanderer over Moses’ [dead] body):
‘He didn’t dare to bring a judgment of blasphemy against him
(gr. ouk
etolmeson krisin epenegkein blasphemias,
Or,
not dare to/judgment
to/bring/against/him blasphemous).’
Certainly, if anyone
could be called an ‘apostate,’ it was this one that other Bible translations
call the Devil and Satan, because he turned from his righteous position in the
heavens
(which is what apostasy means… turning away from a state or
condition).
However, MichaEl never used any such disrespectful term.
He
just said:
‘May Jehovah give you what you deserve.’
This lesson should
serve as a warning to all Christians against using such abusive and condemning
words against others, no matter what the circumstances.
For if the term
‘Christian’ means being like or following Jesus;
His true
followers should never blaspheme others by using disrespectful words.
In the Revelation
(or Apocalypse), we read of four heavenly creatures that apparently picture the
major qualities of God…
Wisdom, justice, love, and power.
And the Greek word
that is used to describe these creatures here is zōo (pronounced
zō-oh), as in the place where people
go to see animals today (zoo).
This word simply means animals, but it is
translated in most Bibles as living creatures.
However, John just wrote
that he saw four animals.
These ‘animals’
that John saw in the Revelation seem to be exactly the same as what EzekiEl saw
in his vision, as recorded in Ezekiel the First Chapter.
However, EzekiEl later
found out that these four animal-like creatures were really cherubs
(see Ezekiel 10:20).
So, it is with this understanding that we used the term
‘cherubs’ in the Revelation to better describe what John saw.
To many, the thought
of choosing by lot (possibly by rolling dice or using some other form of
chance) sounds immoral and quite like gambling.
However, the Bible shows that
this was the correct way to indicate a selection or choice by God.
In fact, the
word for inherit, kleronomesousi, as found in the words, ‘inherit the
earth,’ really means to receive by lot, or, in a lottery.
The reason why this
method (casting lots) was used by faithful ancients was because they wished to
allow God’s hand in their decisions rather than trusting in the viewpoints or
opinions of men.
And there are good reasons to believe that this method of
choosing did in fact result in the manifestation of God’s hand.
For example;
Consider how John the Baptist’s father (ZechariAh) was chosen by lot to serve
in the Holy Place at the exact time for him to be told by a messenger of God
about the upcoming birth of his son and of his son’s responsibilities
concerning the Messiah (Luke 1:8, 9).
Also, consider the
fact that Matthias was chosen by lottery to
replace unfaithful Judas as one of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb.
The good sense of
letting things be decided by apparent chance can be found in the wise words of
Solomon at Proverbs 18:18, where he said:
‘Choosing by lottery ends a dispute
and it defines the boundaries of rulers.’
You will note that
we have made several changes to the Lord’s (Our Father) Prayer.
Here are the
reasons why we did so:
1. Understand that in the original Hebrew and
Greek languages, there was no special word for heaven.
Rather, the word
that appears in all the texts simply means sky.
So, wherever the Greek
word ouranou is found in the singular case, we have usually translated
it as sky.
However, where the word is found in the plural case, ouranon
(indicating something greater than just the sky), we have usually translated it as heavens.
2. Since the words, ‘For thine is the Kingdom,
and the power, and the glory forever, Amen’ aren’t found in the oldest
available texts of Matthew, we have omitted them.
Rather, they appear to have been
some person’s later attempt at completing Jesus’ words to his Apostles about
what subjects they should mention in their prayers.
Also notice that these
words aren’t found in the same prayer as it is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.
The Greek word that
is translated as brotherly love at 2 Peter 1:7 is philadelphian.
The first part of that word, philea, refers to the type of love that a
person might have for a close friend.
In fact, the related Greek word phileo
means friend.
And though the word philea is often looked down on as a
lesser form of love (rendered as affection in other Bible translations),
people are often very impressed by the fact that AbraHam was referred to as
God’s friend (phileo).
The second part of
the word, adelphos, means brothers;
So, philadelphian refers to a
brotherly love or friendship.
And as you can see by the way that Peter used this
word at 2 Peter 1:7 that it appears as though
learning to love your spiritual brothers is just one step away from achieving pure
love
(taken from the Greek word agape).
However, we have found that the special meaning that is often applied to the word agape has been overstated by many religious groups, because it is simply translated as love (with no hidden depth of meaning) in most other places in the Bible.
On the other hand;
In this instance (in 2 Peter), you can see that Peter was using it
to describe the richest sense of its meaning.
He likely had Paul’s definition
of love (agape) in mind, where he wrote at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:
‘Love is patient and kind.
Love isn’t envious, it doesn’t brag, it isn’t
conceited, it doesn’t scheme, it doesn’t watch out just for itself, it doesn’t
stir things up, it doesn’t hold grudges, and it doesn’t rejoice over
unrighteous things;
Rather, it just rejoices over the truth.
It covers
everything, believes everything, hopes everything, and endures everything…
Love
never fails.’
Of course, if having
philadelphian and agape came naturally to Christians, there would
have been no reason for Peter, Paul, and Jesus to remind us to develop these
qualities.
So we must understand that Christians have to work on these
traits to become better at them…
We must always be conscious of our personal
need to become more loving and to be more outgoing in our love for each other
and for everyone else (no matter what religion), since this is the first law
for true Christians.
For it is what demonstrates our personal level of
Christian maturity.
Notice that the Gospel of Luke starts out by addressing
the same man that is addressed at
the beginning of the book of Acts…
Someone with the Greek name (or title of) TheoPhilus.
So
because of this, we have good reason to believe that the person who wrote the
book of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke (and about the same time), ‘the
beloved Physician,’ Luke.
Who was Luke?
The
Bible doesn’t tell us much about him, other than that he was a regular
traveling companion of Paul.
Notice that throughout the book of Acts he writes
that ‘we’ did this or that.
So Luke was likely someone that was also assigned
to preach to gentiles.
And though there is no record of him being an
eye-witness to the events of the life of Jesus, that isn’t true of the events
recorded in the book of Acts, because the accounts there show that he was an
eye-witness to most of the journeys of Paul.
And because he ended Acts with the
imprisonment of Paul in Rome, we must assume that he did all of his writing
around the year 62-CE, which is almost thirty years after Jesus’ death.
Luke was quite a
chronicler, since according to his own words, the book of Luke in particular
was a compilation of things he had researched.
And something that only a
translator would notice, is that quite a bit of Luke’s Gospel is directly
borrowed from Matthew’s Gospel, although it doesn’t follow in the same chronological
order.
There is nothing wrong with him quoting from the Gospel of Matthew,
because he wasn’t there;
So he admits that his was a compiled account, and
Matthew’s writing was just one of the sources that he used.
(See the link, ‘Augustinian
Hypothesis‘).
Also, if you look at
his writing style , you can
see that he likely wrote some of the epistles that are attributed to Paul.
For
it appears as though Paul may have told him what to write, because Paul
eyesight was very poor.
So Luke occasionally served as Paul’s secretary.
The reason why Luke
prepared the Gospel bearing his name was, as he said, to set matters straight
when it came to all the stories that were being told about Jesus at that late
date.
Notice what he wrote at Luke 1:1-3:
‘Since many others have already taken on the job of putting together a
statement of the facts of the things we believe as they were given to us by
those that were eyewitnesses from long ago and by caretakers of the message;
It
seemed good for me to trace everything accurately from the start, then write
them to you in the order that they happened, mighty Theophilus, so you can feel
confident about the things you’ve been taught by word of mouth.’
However, you will
notice that there are a number of places where Luke’s Gospel disagrees with
Matthew’s Gospel (yes, there really are).
Yet that is simply to be expected
when several people tell the same story from different points of view.
So,
while some have tried to discredit the Bible because of the differences, these
differences prove that the accounts are authentic.
Also, Luke listed
many of the things that Jesus said and did in a different order than you will
find in Matthew’s Gospel.
And this could be:
· Because Jesus said the same things on other occasions
· Because (as he said) Luke was more concerned with the exact order of events than was Matthew, who appears to have used a more topical or theme-driven style of writing.
However, because
Luke’s Gospel was written much later than Matthew’s, and because the content shows that
he was quite familiar with what Matthew wrote;
Most of the differences are likely
conscious clarifications to what was written in Matthew.
Yet, there are still
some very significant differences between Matthew’s account of what Jesus said
and what Luke quoted him as saying.
The primary reason for this is that the
book of Matthew appears to have been more corrupted through the years as it was
being translated and copied.
For just a few examples;
Notice the linked
document, ‘Coming, Presence, or Nearness?‘ and the
Note titled ‘In the Name Of.’
You will also notice
that Luke gives an entirely different genealogical list of Jesus’ ancestors
than did Matthew (see the First Chapter of Matthew and the Third Chapter of
Luke).
This could be because Matthew listed Jesus’ ancestors through Joseph’s
line, while Luke listed his ancestry through Mary’s line.
Yes, for some, that
may sound backward;
But for more information, see the Note,
‘The Missing Ancestor of Jesus.’
So is Luke’s Gospel
more accurate than Matthew’s Gospel?
Well, he did have a second look at what
Matthew wrote, which usually provides an edge when it comes to accuracy.
And
the extensive use of the poetry of Jesus’ words in Luke’s account does seem to
indicate a better recollection of exactly how things were said.
In addition;
Because
Luke’s Gospel appears to have been originally written in Greek (so it didn’t
have to be translated like the book of Matthew, which early Christians tell us
was originally written in Hebrew), and because it has always been treated as
secondary in importance to the book of Matthew by most Christians;
It doesn’t
appear to have been corrupted as much by later translators or copyists who
wished to slant the wording to represent their own private beliefs (which is
still being done today by Bible translators).
So, wherever we find major
difference between the accounts, we have learned to defer to and trust the
words of Luke.
The account at Genesis 21:9 speaks of Hagar’s son IshmaEl ‘playfully making fun of’’ Sarah’s son IsaAc.
The Greek word that we have used to translate this phrase is paizonta,
which refers to child’s play or a sporting activity or game.
However, the root
comes from the Greek word empaizo, which also means to deride or make
fun of, or even to get too familiar.
As the result, we have concluded (from Sarah’s reaction) that some sort
of disrespectful act was implied in the play.
Notice that the same word is also
used to describe IsaAc’s actions with his wife Rebecca (at Genesis 26:8), which
caused King AbiMelech, the king of GeraRa, to recognize that she was IsaAc’s
wife, not his sister.
At 2 Thessalonians
2:3, 4, Paul wrote:
‘Don’t allow anyone to mislead you in any way.
Because, [the Lord’s Day] won’t
come until after there has been a great turning away and there has been a
revealing of the lawless man, the son of destruction, who opposes and puts
himself higher than all others that are called gods or things of worship and
who seats himself in the Most Holy Place of The God, where he publicly displays
himself as being a god.’
Notice that the
arrival of this ‘lawless man’ is marked by a ‘great turning away’ from true
Christianity, which proves that he or it is a religious organization or clergy.
He also ‘seats himself in the Most Holy Place (gr. Naos) of The God,’
and ‘he publicly displays himself as being a god’… does this sound familiar?
The mandrake is a
perennial herb that is part of the potato family.
Its leaves grow almost
directly from the taproot, then fan out in a circle and lie close to the
ground.
Each plant grows a single white, blue, or purple flower on a stalk,
which thereafter develops into a yellowish-red fruit that is about the size of
a plum and is described as having the sweet, fresh odor of an apple.
The thick,
often-forked taproot may resemble a man’s lower limbs;
Therefore (like ginseng),
superstitious beliefs have developed about the mandrake having magical powers.
In ancient times,
mandrake fruit was used as a narcotic.
And in some parts of the Middle East, it
is still thought to be an aphrodisiac and an aid to human fertility and
conception.
This is likely the reason why Jacob’s wives RachaEl and Leah, who,
when they were unable to bear children, considered this fruit so valuable.
While the IsraElites
were in the desert prior to entering the Promised Land, manna appeared
miraculously each morning after the dew dried.
The account says that it looked
like white coriander (cilantro) seeds, which are perfectly round and about a
quarter-inch in size.
And the description that they tasted like (whole-wheat)
crackers and honey provides us a good idea of its flavor.
The Hebrew text just
says that it looked like (hoar) frost on the ground.
However, in the
Septuagint, it is described as looking like a coriander seeds, which is easier
to visualize.
What does manna
mean?
It is thought that those were the first words the IsraElites said (in
Hebrew) when the saw it…
‘Man hu?’ or, ‘What is it?’
Was manna the result
of some natural phenomenon?
That isn’t likely, because there is no other
account of anything like it in history, and the IsraElites lived off of it for
forty years.
And notice that that no matter how much of it a person gathered,
it was always enough.
Also, the fact that it
spoiled every night after sundown, except on the night before the Sabbath, is a
pretty good indication that God was its source.
However, since it was found after
the dew dried off the ground, we can see that it was gathered by the moisture
in the morning air.
Then, can we truly
describe it as ‘bread from heaven?’
Though it is spoken of as such at Nehemiah
9:15, it is recorded at John 6:32 that Jesus told a crowd of listeners this:
‘I tell you the truth;
The bread that Moses gave them didn’t [really] come from
heaven.’
So, though the manna
came by the power of God;
Its composition was likely made of earthly things.
But then Jesus
likened the manna from God to his own flesh, and he went on to say in verses
32, 33:
‘However, my Father will give you bread that truly does come from heaven.
For God’s bread is the one that came from heaven in order to give life to the
world.’
The actual names of the Gospel writer Mark appears to have been John Mark, but he was referred to as just Mark to distinguish him from the others named John.
Mark was an
eyewitness to Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of GethSemane, for his account tells
us (at Mark 14:50-52):
‘Then [the Apostles] all abandoned [Jesus] and ran away.
But a certain young
man (who had slipped a linen nightgown over his naked body) started following
close behind…
And then [the mob] tried
to grab him too, so he ran away naked, leaving his covering behind.’
The fact that Mark doesn’t identify this young man by name, indicates that he was likely talking about himself.
The next mentioning
of him in the Bible is when he traveled with Paul and BarNabas to AntiOch, and
from there on to the Island of Cyprus.
But thereafter, the account tells us
that he (against Paul’s wishes) returned home to JeruSalem.
And this departure
later caused quite a dispute between Paul and BarNabas when BarNabas wanted to
take Mark along on a subsequent missionary journey.
However, in a letter
written several years after that time, Paul indicated that he had forgiven Mark
and he specifically asked for him to come to him.
We know that Mark
was a resident of JeruSalem, because the Bible tells us that Peter went to the
home of Mark’s parents (in JeruSalem) after a messenger from God had freed him
from the jail there.
And the fact that Mark was present in a nightgown at
Jesus’ arrest, indicates that he likely lived nearby.
Some commentators
have claimed that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written.
However, it is
clear to us as translators that much of Mark’s story was actually borrowed from
the earlier and far more detailed account of Matthew.
For it appears as though,
in the absence of a Greek language copy of Matthew (the Christian writer Papias of
Hieropolis wrote that Matthew’s account was written in Hebrew and an early
Greek translation had been lost), Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek for
distribution among the gentiles during his later missionary journeys.
Note for example,
the comment at Mark 13:14, where
the readers are advised to pay attention (or understand), and then compare the
words to the same comment made by Matthew at Matthew 24:15.
So from the
context, we can see that one was obviously quoting from the written words of
the other.
Who was quoting from whom?
Look at the following example:
Notice that Mark
actually made a correction to what Matthew wrote about
the things that Jesus did after he rode into the Temple on the back of a burro
to the acclaim of the crowds, shortly before his death.
For we read at Matthew
21:10-12:
‘When he entered JeruSalem, the whole city was stirred up [as people asked],
Who
is this?
But the crowd [that was with Jesus] answered,
He’s Jesus, the
Prophet from NazarEth of GaliLee!
Then Jesus went into the Temple and
threw out all those that were buying and selling there’
As you can see,
Matthew’s Gospel indicates that Jesus did this all on the same day!
However, it
is apparent that Mark was clarifying this description when he wrote (at Mark
11:11):
‘Then he rode into JeruSalem, went into the Temple, and looked around at
everything;
But because it was late, he [went back] to BethAny with the
twelve.’
So according to
Mark, Jesus didn’t do these things on that same day.
And you will notice a
similar correction to Matthew’s account later in the same chapter, where it
tells about what happened when Jesus cursed a fig tree.
Therefore, from such
verses, it can be proven that Matthew wrote first, and then Mark borrowed from
and actually quoted from some of the things that Matthew wrote.
(See the link, Augustinian
Hypothesis).
Of course, there is nothing wrong with one writer copying the words of another, since the books of Mark and Luke are admittedly compiled accounts, and the earlier writings of Matthew were surely included in those compilations.
Therefore, since
many of the things that Jesus said and did are recorded in the same order in
Mark as they are in Matthew (but not in the same order as in Luke’s Gospel);
It
is clear that Mark used the Gospel of Matthew as the source of his writing, and
that someone else (probably Peter) helped him to clarify things where his
recollections differed, or where he remembered other things that he felt should
have been mentioned.
Which language did
Jesus actually speak?
From the many references to what he said as recorded in
Mark, we can see that Jesus spoke Aramaic (a later version of Hebrew).
For Mark
frequently shows Jesus’ words as they were spoken in Aramaic, which he then
translates into Greek.
And this, by the way, is also a pretty good indication
that Mark’s Gospel was originally written in Greek.
Is Mark’s Gospel
more accurate than Matthew’s Gospel?
Well, he did have a second look at what
Matthew wrote, which always provides an edge when it comes to accuracy.
And his
close adherence to the words and order of events as in Matthew would indicate that his revisions are
in fact corrections.
However, most of the poetry of Jesus’ words is missing, so
the beauty of what Jesus said was sacrificed for brevity.
You might note that
Mark’s Gospel also seems to end rather abruptly, which likely caused two later
writers to add their own conclusions to his words.
However, a study of the
wording indicates that neither conclusion is likely authentic, so both have
been omitted from this Bible.
At Mark 7:19, we
have translated Jesus as saying (concerning things that people eat):
‘For, it doesn’t go
into his heart, but into his belly and then into the sewer.
Therefore,
everything that you eat is really clean.’
Notice that these
words were quite shocking to many that were listening to Jesus at the time,
because the IsraElite Law was very specific about showing which animals (for
example) were clean and which were unclean.
So it comes as no surprise that
Jesus’ Apostles said (in verse 12):
‘Don’t you know that
the Pharisees were stumbled by what you said?’
But was Jesus
really saying that the Jews could ignore God’s Law and eat anything they
wanted, even if the Law deemed it to be unclean?
No, for understand that the
problem he was addressing was that the Jews were thinking of themselves as
clean and righteous before God because they adhered to a diet that was
prescribed by the Law.
However, Jesus was pointing out that what a person eats
isn’t what makes him righteous, since food just goes through us and it does
nothing to make our bodies clean or unclean.
So what makes really
a person clean in God’s eyes are the things that we
do and say.
For notice that in verse 15 he had just told them:
‘There’s nothing on
the outside that goes into a man that can make him unclean.
Rather, it’s the
things that come out of a man that make him unclean.’
Then he added (in verses 20-23):
‘It’s what comes out
of a man that makes him unclean.
It’s the things on the inside – from their
hearts – that bad thoughts come…
Things
such as immorality, thefts, murders, adulteries, selfish desires, wicked
actions, deceit, lack of restraint, eyes that are wicked, blasphemy, arrogance,
and unreasonableness.
All these wicked things that come from the inside are
what make a man unclean.’
So Jesus wasn’t
really encouraging the Jews to break God’s Law.
His point was that we can’t be
found righteous by simply eating things that are clean.
Understand that this rule doesn’t just apply to the things that we eat.
Rather, it also applies to everything else in our lives.
For if we find ourselves forbiding
things that God created for our good so as to make ourselves more righteous;
Perhaps we have allowed our views
to cloud more important things.
For example;
Through the centuries, some religious orders have forbidden marriage,
and as the result, their religious leaders have placed too much focus on the role of normal sex with a mate
when it comes to being righteous.
This has resulted in their creating religious laws
that go beyond what is written in the Bible.
To see what the Bible actually
says about sexual relations, you might look at the linked document titled,
‘Christian Morality.’
Also, other religious leaders have lost their understanding of what is truly righteous
and have focused in on forbidding certain normal secular or recreational activities, or the eating or drinking of things
that aren’t really mentioned in the Bible.
And while forbidding ourselves things that we personally
disapprove of isn’t a sin, it also doesn’t make us more righteous.
At Matthew 22:30,
Jesus said:
‘In the resurrection, they won’t marry or be given in marriage, for
they’ll be like the messengers in the heavens.’
This scripture is
often quoted to show that those who are resurrected won’t marry (as Jesus
said).
However, does this apply to all those whom the Bible says will be
raised?
We can’t say for sure.
But notice that Luke’s parallel account (Luke
20:34-36) tells us this:
‘Though the sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
Those who have
been found worthy of that age and the resurrection from the dead won’t marry or
be given in marriage, nor can they die anymore.
For they’ll have the power of the angels,
since, as sons of the resurrection, they [will also be] sons of God.’
So from this, are we
to assume that children won’t be born after the resurrection?
If you believe
that the prophecy found in Isaiah 65 is talking about this same period, then
the answer appears to be that they will.
For at Isaiah 65:23 we are told:
‘My elected won’t labor for nothing,
Nor will they produce children for a curse;
Since their seed and all their descendants
Will then be blessings from God.’
Therefore, what
Jesus really meant when he replied to the Sadducees is still unclear and open
to interpretation.
But because his words about this are found in three of the
four Gospel accounts, we are sure that they are authentic, not spurious
additions.
Much has been said
and written about Mary from Magdala that can’t be found in the Gospels, and the
Bible accounts don’t really tell us much about her.
All we do know is that her
name wasn’t Magdalene, as most Bibles indicate, because surnames were seldom
used in Bible times.
Rather, her name was just Mary, and she was referred to as
the Magdalean to differentiate her from other Marys, who were also
Jesus’ disciples (there are at least six Marys mentioned in the Bible).
It appears as though this term (Magdalene) referred to her as coming from Magdala (or possibly Magadan), which was a town that was located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, about halfway between CapharNaum and Tiberias.
We find the first
mention of this Mary in the second year of Jesus’ preaching, where the Bible
tells us that she and several other faithful women traveled among the crowd of
Jesus’ disciples, serving their needs from their possessions.
And she was also
mentioned as being among the large crowd of people that traveled with Jesus from
Galilee to JeruSalem shortly before his death, where she thereafter witnessed
his death, and was likely the first to see him after he was resurrected.
However, there is no mention of her in the book of Acts or in the epistles
thereafter.
Could she have
possibly been Jesus’ wife, as some have claimed?
Well after Jesus’ death, she
isn’t mentioned by Paul, James, John, Peter, or Jude…
Which would be strange if
she had once held such an important position in Jesus’ life.
Actually, if Jesus
had taken Mary as a wife, he would likely have disqualified himself for his
high position as a Priest before God…
That is, if this Mary had the unsavory
reputation that some have attributed to her.
For notice how Jesus is described
at Hebrews 3:1:
‘Let’s consider this Apostle and High Priest whom we confess, Jesus.’
So as God’s Highest
Priest, Jesus could not have chosen a woman to be his wife unless she had led a
spotlessly-clean life.
For notice God’s own requirements for His Priests, as found at
Leviticus 21:10-14:
‘And the Priest who is the chief one among his brothers …
May only take a wife
that is a virgin and from his own tribe…
Not a widow, a divorcee, someone who
has been violated, or a whore.
He may only take a virgin from his own people
as a wife.’
You will notice that we have included the words ‘and the bride’ at the end of Matthew 25:1, because it is included in the Aramaic text of Matthew, as well as in other ancient Bible texts.
Although it should
be a foregone conclusion that the Lord (‘the groom’ in this parable) would have
arrived at his wedding banquet with his bride;
Many believe that the virgin
guests that are mentioned in the parable are the bride!
So these words that we
have added (which indicate that the bride arrived with the groom) would
contradict that thought and show that the virgins were not the bride, but were
simply guests at the wedding banquet, as one would expect.
Do we have any other
basis for reaching such a conclusion?
Yes!
Notice how this situation was
prophesied at Psalm 45:15-18, where we read:
‘The king’s daughter is glorious within,
And she’s wrapped in embroidered fringes of gold.
Then, all the virgins that follow in her train,
Those closest to her, will be carried to you.
They will be carried in, giving praises in joy,
And led to the king’s Most Holy Place.’
So although some
may argue that the words about the bride arriving with the groom were not
written by Matthew;
It just makes sense they actually were, for they are found
in the Aramaic text of Matthew (note that we do find the Aramaic text of the
book of Matthew more accurate than the available Greek text).
And consider the
other facts, such as the number of the virgins (many brides?), and that some
were not allowed into the banquet (rejected brides?).
All of this indicates
that the virgin companions are likely not the bride.
Unfortunately, this same
parable isn’t mentioned in any of the other Gospel accounts, so we have no
parallel texts to compare it against.
Recognize that in
ancient Hebrew society, the custom was for a man to accept the woman from her parents,
and shortly thereafter, consummated the marriage
(which was the actual ‘wedding’).
And it was after the proof of virginity was
established that the family held a banquet to which friends and guests were
invited.
So the fact that the virgins were invited to the celebration (the wedding banquet) proves that they were not the bride, but the guests.
Indeed, it would
seem strange for a man to marry, and thereafter be found traveling along the
road to invite some of his brides to their wedding banquet, while not allowing
the rest of the brides to enter.
(For more
information, see the subheading ‘The Ten Virgins’ in the linked document, ‘The Faithful and Sensible Slave.’)
At Matthew 27:9, the
Greek text says that JeremiAh
wrote the prophecy that foretold Jesus’ betrayal for thirty pieces of silver
and of his betrayer being buried in the potter’s field.
However, JeremiAh
didn’t really write that!
Rather, the prophecy was actually written by
ZechariAh (see Zechariah 11:12, 13).
So it
is clear that this is another of several errors that we have found while
translating the Greek text of Matthew.
On the other hand;
Notice that the available Aramaic
text of Matthew (which we have come to trust more only when it comes to the
book of Matthew) doesn’t give us the name of the Prophet that wrote those words;
It just says ‘the Prophet.’
Therefore, we have gone with the Aramaic wording of
this verse.
Notice that we have
deleted the words that are found in Matthew 27:52, 53, which speak of ‘Holy
Ones’ arising from tombs and being seen in ‘the Holy City’ after the
resurrection of Jesus.
Why?
Because the words appear to be spurious (something
that was added to the Bible).
You will see that
this description is missing from the parallel account of the same words as
found in Luke (see Luke 23:45).
And if there were
in fact people that had been resurrected and walked around in JeruSalem after
Jesus’ death (a very unlikely event), surely Luke would have included such a
startling thing in his account.
It is important to
notice how oddly these particular words fit into the context of Matthew’s
account.
For notice they were inserted right in the middle of his description
of the things that happened at the time of Jesus’ death!
But you can see
(from verse 53) that this ‘resurrection’ is something that happened much later,
after Jesus’ resurrection (look at the context)!
So it is out of sequence, unlikely, and it detracts from the far more important symbolic miracle of the Temple curtain that separated ‘the Most Holy’ (the entrance to the presence of God) being ripped in two when Jesus died.
Of course, we
wouldn’t normally question the authenticity of a miracle mentioned in the
Bible.
But as we have pointed out in several of our other Notes;
The book of
Matthew in particular seems to contain the largest number of provable spurious
insertions and changes.
Since the books of
Mark and Luke clearly appear to have been Gospels that were written in Greek
for a gentile audience at a time when Matthew’s work was only available in
Hebrew or Aramaic,
And since both of these books can be proven to have used the
earlier Gospel of Matthew as a reference;
When we find a questionable verse in
Matthew (such as this one), we look for substantiation of its authenticity in
these parallel Gospels.
And though Luke wrote about the splitting of the Temple
curtain and the resurrection of Jesus, he didn’t speak of ‘Holy Ones’ arising
from the dead and walking about in JeruSalem.
Notice that the
superscription of Psalm 45 indicates that it is speaking about ‘the loved one,’
whom we would assume to be the Messiah (Jesus).
However, notice that in the
King James Bible, Psalm 45:6 reads:
‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right
sceptre.’
So, despite the fact that the superscription proceeding Psalm 45 seems to indicate that this psalm or sacred hymn was foretelling the coming of Jesus, the impression that we get from the rendering of the King James Bible (and many others), is that the Psalm is in fact talking about The God (Jehovah).
Who was it really discussing?
Well, notice that
the Hebrew text correctly translates the word God here from the Hebrew
word for god, elohim, not as in other places where it substitutes the
words GOD or LORD for the Divine Name YHWH.
And remember
that in several other places throughout the Bible, Jesus is also referred to as a god.
So there is no conflict in Psalm 45, because the term god can also be
correctly applied to Jesus, since the reference is to someone that is powerful,
not necessarily to the Almighty.
(For more information, see the Note, ‘Is Jesus God?’)
For this reason (for
clarification), we have rendered Psalm 45:6 to read as follows:
‘Your throne, O god, is through ages of ages,
And your Kingdom is ruled by your scepter.’
As you can see;
We
used the lower-case word ‘god’ to translate the Greek word theos here.
Why?
Although other translators have assumed that the king that is spoken of in the
verse is The God, notice what the following verse (verse seven) goes on to say:
‘For, you have loved what is right,
And you have hated law breaking.
And for this, The God who is also your God
Has anointed you with His oil
And praised you above all your peers.’
So it seems clear
that theos in verse 6 didn’t refer to The God, but to the
powerful one whom God was to choose and anoint to be His king.
Also notice
that this one was chosen over his ‘peers,’ because he ‘loved righteousness and
hated law breaking.’
Of course, The God has no ‘peers.’
Further insights
into the true meaning of this Psalm may be gained by looking at verses 14-16,
where we read:
‘Then, all the virgins that follow her train
(Those closest to her) will be carried to you.
They’ll be carried there singing praises of joy,
And led to the Most Holy Place of the king.
Then in place of your fathers, sons will be born,
And you’ll appoint them as rulers over the lands.’
We have translated 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 as saying:
‘We the living that have remained until the Lord is near definitely won’t go
ahead of those that are sleeping [in death].
Because, the Lord himself will
descend from the sky and give the command in the voice of the highest messenger
[of God] and with God’s trumpet.
Then those that have died in the Anointed One
will be resurrected first.
And we the living that remain will be snatched
away with them at that time into the clouds for a meeting with the Lord in the
air, so we’ll always be with the Lord.’
If you look closely here, you will see that the
wording raises some serious questions about what Paul was really saying.
For note:
1. Why are they spoken of as being taken into the clouds (gr. en nephalais) and meeting with the Lord in the air (gr. eis aera), which is all down here in earth’s atmosphere?
2. If they are being taken into heaven (the presence of God), then why is the word that is commonly translated as heaven in English (gr. ourano) specifically left unmentioned as the place where they are taken?
3. Who are these ones that have died in the Anointed One (gr. nekroi en Christo)?
4. Will they thereafter ‘always be with the Lord’ in the air, in heaven, or here on the earth?
For an in-depth discussion of the possible answers to these questions, see the linked document, ‘The Rapture.’
The Greek word at 1 Timothy 1:10 that we have translated as
men that have sex with men, is arsenokoitais.
Arseno means male human and koitais means bed-ers (or
those that ‘bed’ males).
So this term specifically refers to males that take
sexual advantage of other males.
Most Bible
translations render the Greek word aggelous (pronounced ahn-gell-ouse
– with a hard g) as angel wherever it is found.
However, aggelous
is just the Greek word for messenger.
True, in most cases
where the Bible speaks of angels it is referring to spirit messengers from God.
But this is clearly not what is meant in every instance.
So, understand that
when you see the word angel in other Bibles, recognize that this choice
of words may just have been the opinion of the person that did the translating,
and it isn’t necessarily what the original writer meant.
For example;
Consider the words found at Acts 12:15.
Here you can see that Peter had just
been miraculously released from a jail and he went to the door of some faithful
Christians (the family home of the Gospel writer, Mark).
And when he knocked,
the housemaid told the people inside that Peter was at their door.
However,
notice that most other Bibles thereafter say that the family thought it was
‘his angel’ knocking on their door.
If someone came
knocking at your door, would you assume that it was an angel?
That’s quite
unlikely and unreasonable.
Therefore, notice that translating the word
‘aggelous’ as what it really means, ‘messenger,’ makes much more sense in this
case, since it’s far more probable that Mark’s family thought that Peter had
sent someone with a message.
Yet, despite this,
there are people who will believe that ‘aggelous’ should always be translated
as ‘angel,’ which is what some translators have done.
And this has led to a
misunderstanding of the meanings of several Bible texts.
Take for example, the
messages that Jesus sent to John in Chapters Two and Three of the Revelation
(or Apocalypse).
At Revelation 2:1 the King James Bible says:
‘Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus
write;
These things says he that holds
the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden
lampstands …’
From this mistranslation of the word aggelous,
some have come to believe that Jesus sent messages to John through angels
that were intended for other angels…
Not likely.
Rather, notice that the
‘angels’ (actually ‘messengers’) were people in the local congregations who,
back in a time where not everyone could read or write, handled congregational
communications.
So they were humans that actually had the responsibility of
receiving and sending out letters.
And these were the ones to whom Jesus was
sending the messages through John.
(For more information, see the linked
commentary, ‘Arrangement
of the First Christian Churches’).
Also notice the
problems that are created when aggelous
is always as angel in the many places
where the word is found in the Greek Septuagint text of the OT.
Note that
Genesis 32:3 (for example) reads like this in the Septuagint:
‘Apasteile de Iakob aggelous emprosthen autou pros Hesau ton adelphon
autou’
or,
‘Sent of Jacob angels(?) ahead of/him toward Esau the brother of/him.’
If you look at the
context, you will see that Jacob was sending human messengers ahead to
meet with his brother, not heavenly ones (angels).
And you will see that this
is not an unusual instance where aggelous
should be translated as messenger.
For notice also the words of Haggai 1:13, where the Prophet HagGai was
described as being ‘a messenger (gr. aggelous) of Jehovah.’
Of course, Haggai was just a man, not a spirit (an angel).
So, it is clear that the Greek word aggelous should be
translated as messengers in these cases…
Which is what other translators
of the Septuagint have done.
Yet, these same translators are inconsistent in
their translating when they translate same the word as ‘angel’ in other places,
which is what they do.
Consider for
example, the words found at Numbers 20:14, where we read that Moses sent messengers
(gr. aggelous) from Cades to the king of Edom.’
This is obviously
talking about human messengers.
But then, just two verses later (verse 16), we
read that ‘Jehovah … heard our voice and sent His messenger (gr. aggelon
– messenger or angel) that brought us out of Egypt.’
So, here is a case
where in just two sentences, we find both earthly and heavenly messengers being
mentioned.
Yet, Septuagint translators always render the first word as messenger,
and the second word as angel…
Though they are both the same
basic word in Greek!
Notice that we have
translated the words as messenger or messengers in both instances, for
readers should be able to discern from the context which ones are human, and
which ones are spirit, rather than having some translator make an arbitrary
decision for them.
Recognize that there are several places in the Bible where there is
some question as to whether the verse is speaking of humans or spirits…
And we
believe that you should have the opportunity to make up your own mind as to
what the text really means!
But then, you’ll see that there are a few instances in this Bible where we have also translated ‘aggelous’ as ‘angels’ (that is, where the text is clearly speaking of spirit creatures), simply because it fits into poetic texts better (poetic license).
Notice that there
are some other advantages to translating aggelos as messenger
even when it is truly speaking of spirit sons of God.
For using the correct
word tends to give you a better understanding of the actual role that such sons
of God play in His dealings with mankind.
And notice that the term angel
doesn’t really refer to a type of creature or to a heavenly rank, as most
think, since serving as a messenger may in fact just be a one-time assignment.
Yet, hundreds of commentaries have been written by religious scholars about t