What exactly did Jesus predict in Mark 9:1? Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” Jesus prophesied that some of His listeners on that occasion (including His disciples—Mark 8:34) would still be alive to “see the kingdom of God come with power” (NIV).

Skeptics contend that the coming kingdom Jesus mentioned in this passage is a reference to “the end of the world,”⁴ when Jesus returns (Matthew 24:36-25:46; 2 Peter 3:10-13) and when “an entrance will be supplied…abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11). The same eternal, “heavenly kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:18) that Peter and Paul eagerly anticipated is supposedly the same kingdom about which Jesus prophesied in Mark 9:1. Are skeptics correct?

As is the case with so many so-called “contradictions,” skeptics have once again assumed a sense (or definition) of a word, which cannot be proven. They have chosen a meaning that contradicts the passage rather than considering a logical sense of the word “kingdom” which perfectly fits with Jesus’ prophecy.

Admittedly, at times God’s kingdom is rightly understood in its future sense. After all, Jesus taught: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him…. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’” (Matthew 25:31,34). This “kingdom” is the heavenly phase of God’s kingdom, which the righteous will “inherit” at the end of time (1 Corinthians 15:50).

However, there is a real, biblical sense in which God’s Kingdom exists in the present—and has been in existence since the first century. In fact, long before Jesus correctly prophesied of this coming Kingdom, the Old Testament prophets did so. Isaiah and Micah prophesied of “the mountain⁵ of the Lord’s house” being established in Jerusalem “in the latter days” (Isaiah 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-4). About 200 years later, in the sixth century B.C., Daniel recorded a divinely revealed, prophetic dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel 2:1-45). According to Daniel, the king dreamed of a great image with a head of gold, a chest and arms of silver, a belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet partly of iron and partly of clay. In the dream, a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands and struck the image. The clay, iron, bronze, silver, and gold were crushed and became like dust, carried away by the wind. But, “the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35). Daniel revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that the image he saw represented various earthly kingdoms. Babylon was the head of gold, while the other elements of the image stood for future empires that would rise up after Babylon. History has shown that the chest and arms of silver represented the Medo-Persian Empire. The belly and thighs of bronze were for the Grecian Empire. And the legs of iron and feet of both iron and clay stood for the Roman Empire.

Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that it would be during the days of this fourth kingdom⁶ (the Roman Empire) that the God of heaven would “set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed;…it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). Its beginning would be small, like the stone that was cut out of the mountain without hands, but it eventually would consume all other kingdoms and become a great mountain filling the whole Earth.

What is this kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar dreamed, and Daniel spoke? What is this great kingdom that would eventually fill the whole Earth? It’s the spiritual Kingdom of Christ—the Church. More than 500 years before the Church was established, God revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar in a prophetic dream that a Kingdom made “without hands”—a spiritual Kingdom of divine origin—would be established during the days of the Roman Empire.

This entity is the Kingdom that Jesus prophesied would come during the lifetime of His first-century hearers. Jesus not only prophesied of this Kingdom in Matthew 16:28 (as well as in the parallel passages in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27), He also predicted it just a few verses earlier in Matthew 16:18-19. To the apostle Peter, Jesus said: “I will build My church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven….” Jesus promised to establish His Church and then equated the Church with the Kingdom of heaven, to which He gave Peter “the keys.” What do keys do? They unlock doors, thus allowing entrance. When did Peter open the doors to the Kingdom? Only a few months later in Acts 2 when Peter and the apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4), preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and about 3,000 souls became Christians (2:41), submitting to the authoritative lordship of Jesus Christ—the King of kings (1 Timothy 6:15-16; Ephesians 1:21). On that day, the Day of Pentecost, the Kingdom of God (in its present sense) came “with power” (Mark 9:1), just as Jesus had prophesied.

From Acts 2 onward, God’s Kingdom has existed, and New Testament Christians have been servants in this Kingdom. To the church at Colosse, Paul noted how God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Colossians 1:13). With the Christians in Asia Minor, the apostle John declared that he shared “in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:9). Indeed, the Christians in Asia Minor nearly 2,000 years ago were already fellow citizens in the Kingdom of Christ.

Conclusion

Christians are not “haunted” by Mark 9:1, nor do we have to “concoct an endless number of rationalizations to explain its [alleged] failure.”⁷ A rational, biblical, easy-to-understand explanation exists: words have different meanings, and Jesus used the word “kingdom” in this verse in reference to His Church—God’s spiritual Kingdom in the present. Indeed, those who heard Jesus’ prophecy of Mark 9:1 saw Christ’s Kingdom come in their lifetime.

Endnotes

The post A Failed Prophecy of Christ? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, consider that the parable of the vinedressers is one of Jesus’ easiest parables to understand: no landowner will tolerate the workers of his land killing his own commissioned servants, and certainly not his own son. Thus, the answer to Jesus’ question, “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” is self-evident—even a child knows that the landowner will severely punish his workers.

Consider the school teacher who asks a class full of students, “What will happen to a student who chooses to beat up another student in class?” Likely, one or more in the class would respond by saying, “He will be kicked out of class and sent to the principal’s office.” But might the teacher echo the same obvious response? “That’s right! He will be expelled from this class and sent to the principal.” So who responded to the teacher’s question? In truth, both “the class” and “the teacher” responded. [Often parents do the same thing with their children: (a) They ask an obvious question; (b) They wait for the child to respond; and (c) Then (for the sake of emphasis) they respond by repeating the answer the child just gave.]

When Jesus taught the parable of the vinedressers, He was in the Temple. Some of His enemies, including chief priests, scribes, and elders, were present (Luke 20:1; Matthew 21:23), as well as anyone else (“the people—Luke 20:9) at the Temple who stopped to hear the Master Teacher. Is it possible that both Jesus (the Teacher) and some among His hearers responded to the self-evident judgment upon the vinedressers? Indeed. Is it also possible that some responded to Jesus’ parable and subsequent question and answer by not wanting to believe the truth that He had just taught “against them” (Luke 20:16)? Most certainly.

There is no proven contradiction among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All three accounts of Jesus’ parable of the vinedressers are in perfect harmony with one another. By meditating on what each writer penned, we merely get a fuller picture of the events of the day—a picture of people who were rejecting and attempting to kill the “Landowner’s” Son.

Suggested Products

The post The Response to Jesus’ Parable of the Vinedressers appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: For a follow-up to this article, see “Isn’t Lying Permissible in Certain Situations?”]   

Whereas many Bible passages in both the Old and the New Testament indicate that lying is sinful,¹ critics of the inspiration of the Bible contend that the biblical teaching on this subject is contradictory. The most frequently cited example revolves around Rahab’s lie in the book of Joshua and two separate, favorable comments about Rahab in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25).

Although some well-meaning Christians may creatively contend that Rahab did not lie in Joshua 2, a simple, straightforward reading of the biblical text indicates that she did. After Rahab hid the Israelite spies on her roof among the stalks of flax (Joshua 2:6), she told the messengers of the King of Jericho (who were pursuing the Israelites) that the men in question had already left, and exactly where they went she did not know (2:4-5). However, (1) the Israelites had not left, and (2) she knew exactly where they were. In fact, after speaking to the king’s men, she went back up to the roof to speak with them and to help them safely escape (2:8-21).

According to Bible critics, God is inconsistent in His condemnation of dishonesty. How can “lying lips” be “an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 12:22), while at the same time God spared Rahab from the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 2:9-21; 6:22-25). How is it that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” (Revelation 21:8), and yet Rahab be commended twice by New Testament writers?

By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace (Hebrews 11:31).

[W]as not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way (James 2:25)?

Is the Bible inconsistent on this subject? And do these verses not prove that lying is approved in some situations?

First, simply because the Bible commends an individual for a righteous act does not mean that God condones everything the person ever did. Just as husbands and wives can be faithful to each other despite their shortcomings, and just as children can be submissive to their parents and yet have fallen short of their parents’ expectations many times while growing up, every accountable soul has the potential to be faithful notwithstanding their regretful sins and imperfections.

Keep in mind that Jesus was the only accountable Person ever to live Who never sinned.² Though Noah, Abraham, Moses, and many others were counted faithful (Hebrews 11:7-29), they occasionally disobeyed God’s will (Numbers 20:1-12) and acted foolishly or cowardly (cf. Genesis 9:21; 12:12-20; 20:1-18). The apostle Peter, who also served as an elder in the early church (1 Peter 5:1), was guilty at one time or another of having a lack of faith (Matthew 14:31), denying that he knew the Lord (Matthew 26:69-75), and hypocritically withdrawing himself from Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). Yet God chose Peter to be a preacher of the Gospel and to pen two of the New Testament epistles. He was not chosen because of his sins; he was chosen in spite of them (and because he repented of his sins and sought to walk in the light rather than wander habitually and rebelliously in the darkness—cf. 1 John 1:5-10). Every saved soul is a former coward, murderer, blasphemer, adulterer, thief, or liar, etc. Every faithful Christian who is walking in the light is tempted to sin, and sometimes (or far more often than we might like to admit) we think, say, or do unchristlike things. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). All faithful followers of God still make mistakes, have moments of weakness, and struggle in a variety of ways, yet they can still “do justly,” “love mercy,” “walk humbly” (Micah 6:8), and “persevere” faithfully (Revelation 3:10).

Second, keep in mind that Rahab was a Canaanite harlot. The people of Canaan were (generally) extremely wicked. They practiced “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30) and did “detestable things” (Deuteronomy 18:9, NASB). They attempted to cast spells upon people and call up the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). They would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). This statement summarizes the level of depravity in Canaan (of which Jericho was a part). Whether Rahab had fully embraced her culture’s debauchery or whether she was more of a victim of her circumstances (as many women have been throughout history), she nevertheless is described in Scripture as a “harlot” who lied (Joshua 2:1-8; 6:17,25). Such sinfulness in the life of a Canaanite woman should come as no surprise. But thankfully, the life of Rahab did not continue to parallel her pagan culture. She wanted out, and the Lord provided a way—which leads us to a third point to consider.

Rahab’s recorded words and actions in Joshua 2 reveal a woman in transition—from living like a pagan harlot to embracing the One true God and His ways. Notice her statements to the Israelite spies:

I know that the Lord has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea…and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites…. And as soon as we heard these things our hearts melted…for the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on Earth beneath (Joshua 2:9-11).

Rahab then coupled her confessed belief in the existence of Jehovah and His mighty works with action (Joshua 2:6-24). She courageously hid the two Israelite spies from the King of Jericho. She treated the spies kindly. She helped them escape the city. She gave them specific instructions on what to do after they made it out of the city (so that they would not be caught by the king’s men). Rahab and her family kept secret the Israelite plan to destroy Jericho. And, as directed, Rahab bound the scarlet cord in her window, and gathered her parents and other family members in her house (according to the spies’ commands) in order to be spared from Jericho’s destruction. Indeed, as the New Testament rightly recognizes, Rahab actively demonstrated her faith in Jehovah (however so uninformed, inexperienced, and flawed her faith still was).

Fourth, Rahab’s dishonesty is never condoned in Scripture. She was no more commended in the Old Testament or the New Testament for lying than she was for her harlotry. She was commended and graciously spared from the destruction of Jericho because of her overall faith and works at the time—despite the fact that her newly found, courageous faith (which was quickly emerging out of a heavily pagan culture) was still a work in progress. Yes, she lied to the king’s men, but she also (1) confessed belief in Jehovah, (2) appealed to Him for help, (3) showed kindness to the Israelite spies, (4) courageously hid them and helped them escape, etc. There is no logical or biblical reason either to deny Rahab’s lie or to criticize her overall, emerging faith in God. If we would rightly commend a newly recovering alcoholic, pornography addict, or covetous individual who has a temporary set-back in a moment of trying temptation in the midst of a grueling attempt to repent and live a righteous life, could the merciful and gracious God of the Bible not rightly commend Rahab for her overall faith and works in her newfound walk with the Lord?

Can We Ever Lie to Protect Others?

Scripture reveals that everything about God is true. His Spirit, Son, law, commandments, judgments, and works are all true—100% true.³ The simple fact is “God…cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). His perfectly truthful nature will not allow Him to lie. Furthermore, throughout God’s truthful Word honesty is commended, while dishonesty is condemned.⁴ So, if God is always truthful, and if His Word teaches us to be honest, then how can a faithful child of God ever believe we have a God-approved license to lie, even if a lie is told for the purpose of trying to help others? A person may feel like he or she is doing a good thing, but no God-given authority exists for lying (for whatever “noble” reason).

One important lesson that we can learn from God is that we can be perfectly honest and yet not reveal everything we know. God is omniscient (Psalm 139) and has obviously not told us “everything.” We don’t even know everything about the 33-year life of Jesus on Earth (John 21:25). Most of what God knows He has not shared with mankind, but those things that He has truthfully revealed to us are for our eternal benefit (Deuteronomy 29:29). Similarly, whatever situation that we are in, we are to be truthful, but we do not have to say everything that we are thinking or everything that we know about a particular matter. Parents should show maturity and wisdom if their five-year-old son asks them where babies come from. Children’s Bible teachers should show discretion if they are asked point-blank questions about sensitive, sinful matters such as pornography, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, or even bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). We may struggle with the best way to address a sensitive topic (which may “get us in trouble” with various ones), but we have no right to lie. We may tell children to ask their parents at home in private. We may speak in broad, truthful generalities. We may let children know that we will plan to talk with them about various matters on a different occasion (i.e., years from now). We may attempt to distract the questioners and pray that God will providentially deliver us from the uncomfortable situation. Whatever course of action the Christian takes, it should be done (1) honestly, (2) wisely (Matthew 10:16), and (3) with sincere and loving motivations (Matthew 6:1-4; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

But what if a person’s life is at stake? What if you could save a life by lying? Answer: Although human life is an extremely valuable gift from God (Genesis 1:26-27), the most important thing in this life is not merely to live, but to be faithful to God, regardless of the situation. Jesus could have lied and worked things out to spare His own life, but He died (and rose) for a higher purpose. He submissively fulfilled His Father’s will. Jesus and His inspired spokesmen could have instructed the early church to avoid persecution and death by lying for each other or by denying their own faith in Christ, but they didn’t. In fact, to those first-century Christians who were suffering (or were about to face great tribulation), even to the point of death, Jesus declared, “Be faithful until death [even to the point of death—NIV], and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).

Whether a husband or a wife, a mother or a father, a saintly sister in Christ or a spiritual shepherd at a local church, in whatever dire situations people may find themselves, we can creatively attempt to protect families, friends, neighbors, and churches by saying and doing all sorts of things (even by remaining silent), but we should be willing even to die before sinning against the holy God of heaven. Like Samuel, who, with God’s blessing, only told a part of the reason why he traveled to Bethlehem in tumultuous times (in order to protect his own life—1 Samuel 16:1-13), we may truthfully only tell some of what we know about a particular matter in order to save our lives or the lives of others. But, we must be resolved to “be imitators of God as dear children” in all things at all times (Ephesians 5:1). We must be resolved to put away lying (Ephesians 4:28) and to be honest all day, every day.

The story of Rahab should not be used as a license to lie. Instead, we should retell Rahab’s story to show the greatness of Jehovah over the false gods of this world and to inspire God’s people to courageous acts—similar to many of those works demonstrated by a woman from the pagan city of Jericho some 3,500 years ago.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: For a follow-up to this article, see “Isn’t Lying Permissible in Certain Situations?”]   

Endnotes

¹ Exodus 20:16; Leviticus 19:11; Proverbs 6:16-19; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9; Revelation 21:8.

² Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22.

³ 1 John 5:6; John 14:6; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalm 119:14,151; 19:9; Daniel 4:37.

⁴ Leviticus 19:36; Psalm 15:2; Proverbs 16:11; Ephesians 4:28.

The post Did God Approve of Rahab’s Lie? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

By inspiration of God, Matthew gives five great speeches of Christ: (1) the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7); (2) instructions given when Christ sends out His 12 apostles (ch. 10); (3) the kingdom parables (ch. 13); (4) dealing with feelings of pride and superiority in the kingdom (ch. 18); and (5) predictions about the fall of Jerusalem (24:1-35) and the second coming of Christ (24:36-25:46). Each speech ends with the same basic phrase—“When Jesus had finished these sayings….”

Central Theme:

Matthew wrote to the Jews so that they could know for sure that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the King/Messiah (or the “anointed one”) foretold by the Old Testament prophets. He was the long-awaited “Son of David” (Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 12:23) and Son of Abraham (1:1) through whom all families would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). Matthew emphasizes that since Jesus is King, all Jews (and non-Jews—28:19) must submit to Him, bow before Him, and accept His kingdom. [NOTE: The word “kingdom” is found 56 times in Matthew, mostly in reference to God’s heavenly kingdom.] Matthew 5:17-20 gives the basic message of the book by telling of the fulfillment and completion of Mosaic religion in the work of Christ through His teaching and sacrifice, and the establishment of His kingdom.

Suggested Resources

The post Book of Matthew appeared first on Apologetics Press.

John seems to refute the false belief that Jesus did not come to Earth in physical/human form. Thus, John draws attention to the physical aspects of Christ’s person, including His pain and death, His hunger and thirst, and His becoming tired, among other things. John also presents several personal interviews.

Central Theme:

The theme of the book is stated in the last two verses of John 20: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” Thus the book is designed to confirm the divine nature of Christ on the basis of “signs,” seven of which are spotlighted in the book. These signs are presented to prove the truthfulness of Jesus’ claim to be divine.  Signs were the chosen means by which Jesus “manifested His glory” (2:11).

He is referred to as “the Word” (1:1); “God” (1:1); “the Lamb of God” (1:29); “the Messiah” (1:41); “the Son of God” (1:49); “the King of Israel” (1:49); “Son of Man” (1:51); “the Savior of the world” (4:42); and “my Lord and my God” (20:28). His deity is identified in the “I am” statements (4:26; 8:24,28,58; 13:19)—clear references to the God of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14). His divine nature is also echoed in other “I am” expressions (6:35; 8:12; 10:9,11,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5; 18:5).

Though John reflects his Jewish background in his 
allusions to Jewish life and customs, he writes to all people—Jew and Gentile—and their need to 
acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God.

The post Summary of the Book of John appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The Gospels:

Includes: Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John

History: 
The book of Acts gives us a 30-year history of the early church. It tells us what the apostles did to spread the Good News.

Includes: Acts

Epistles:
These letters were addressed to either a group (such as the Christians in Rome) or to a person (such as Titus).

Includes: Romans – Jude

Prophecy: 
The book of Revelation contains visions given by Christ to the apostle John. It told Christians what to expect in the near future.

Includes: Revelation

The post The New Testament Library appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Q:

Why does Matthew’s genealogy of Christ list only 41 male ancestors if the genealogy is broken down into three groups of 14, which presumably would be 42 people?

A:

If a person were to count the names of those in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, he would indeed find that Matthew lists 41 male ancestors between (and including) Abraham to Jesus. Yet, at the conclusion of the genealogy Matthew wrote: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.” Fourteen times three is 42, not 41. So why does Matthew only include 41 names?

Before answering the question, one important observation to note about the various genealogies in Scripture is that sometimes they contain gaps—gaps that are intentional and legitimate. (The only reason we know of these gaps in certain genealogies is because the Bible fills them in elsewhere.) Terms such as “begot,” “the son of,” and “father”—which often are found in genealogies—occasionally have a much wider connotation in the Bible than might be implied when such words are used in modern-day English. [NOTE: Unlike in the English language where ancestors several generations removed can be pinpointed with exact specificity quickly and easily (e.g., “Mr. Shiver was my great-great-great grandfather”), no comparable terminology was used in biblical Hebrew.] Jacob once called Abraham “father,” even though Abraham was actually his grandfather (Genesis 32:9). About 2,000 years later, the Pharisees also referred to Abraham as their “father” (John 8:39). The term “father” in these passages obviously means “ancestor.” Ezra’s genealogy in Ezra 7:1-5 omits six generations of his ancestors, calling Azariah “the son of Meraioth,” when strictly speaking Azariah was the great-great-great-great-great grandson of Meraioth (cf. 1 Chronicles 6:1-15).

In the first verse of Matthew’s gospel account, which introduces his genealogy of Jesus, the apostle wrote of Jesus as being “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Obviously, Matthew knew that Jesus was not an immediate son of either David or Abraham; he simply used these words in the same flexible way that the ancients frequently used them (and with which the Jews were very familiar). Later in his genealogy, Matthew intentionally omitted some other names as well (e.g., Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah; cf. Matthew 1:6-16; 1 Chronicles 3:11-12). We cannot be certain why Matthew excluded these names (possibly it was for memorization purposes). We can, however, be certain that if these gaps represented a legitimate discrepancy, the Jews would have brought it to the attention of Christians 2,000 years ago when they sought to discredit Jesus’ royal lineage. [NOTE: The “all” of Matthew 1:17 (“all the generations” from Abraham to Christ) refers only to those ancestors just previously mentioned by Matthew in 1:1-16.]

Still, the question remains: why 41 male ancestors from Abraham to Jesus, rather than the 42 that Matthew 1:17 seems to suggest? The fact is, Matthew does not tell us exactly why he only included 41 names, but again, it would appear that he grouped the names of Jesus’ male ancestors in a manner that would aid in retention of the information. Though commentators have varying ideas of Matthew’s three-fold breakdown of Christ’s genealogy, it seems logical simply to take Matthew at his word. That is, it appears that the writer counted the great King David twice (again, for amplification and memorization purposes). The conclusion of the genealogy is broken down thusly: from “Abraham to David,” from “David until the captivity in Babylon,” and “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ” (1:17, emp. added). Since David is the only name in the genealogy of Christ that is listed twice in Matthew 1:17, then it would seem logical to conclude that Matthew intentionally counted David twice, thus getting the number 42. [As the most celebrated king in the history of Israel, the Jews would have appreciated David’s name marking an end and a beginning to divisions in Jesus’ genealogy. What’s more, “the numerical value of ‘David’ in Hebrew is fourteen…. By this symbolism Matthew points out that the promised ‘son of David’ (1:1), the Messiah, has come” (Carson, 1994, 8:69).]

Since Matthew does not mention an exact name at the end of the second and the beginning of the third grouping in Matthew 1:17, but rather a time period (“the captivity in Babylon”), it may be that Josiah marked the end of the second grouping (“about the time of the captivity, as sufficiently near for the purpose of convenient computation”—Barnes, 1997), while Jeconiah began the third division, with Jesus at the end.

Throughout Matthew’s gospel account, Jesus is portrayed as King of a heavenly kingdom (Matthew 16:28; 21:5; 28:18; cf. John 18:36). Matthew refers to the kingdom (basileia) of God over 50 times. The apostle began his account of the good news of Jesus with the Messiah’s genealogy, “to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations” (Carson, 8:63). It may very well be that Matthew’s emphasis on David [who brought an end to the line of “patriarchs” in Jesus’ ancestry (1:2-6; cf. Acts 2:29), and marked the beginning of a long line of kings (1:7-11), which eventually brilliantly culminated in the reign of Christ over heaven and Earth] explains his seemingly counting David twice in Matthew 1:17.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Carson, D.A. (1994),The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, ed. Frank E Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Recommended Resources

The post Did Matthew Miscalculate in His Genealogy of Christ? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The fact is, whether skeptics want to admit it or not, people regularly (and honestly) talk of “seeing” and “not seeing,” as well as “hearing” and “not hearing”—even in reference to the same things at the same time. The justifiable difference, however, is in the sense in which the words are used. A man with rather poor vision and without glasses may not be able to “see anything.” But the same man with the same blurry vision may technically be able to “see something.” He can see light and darkness. He can see the blue sky. He can see fuzzy figures. He might even be able to read a document held close to his eyes. But could he make out a person’s face from 15 feet away? Could he effectively work as a night watchman? Could he safely drive a car? Certainly not with, say, 20/80 vision. Thus, in one sense the man can “see,” while in another sense “he’s blind.” Likewise, those accompanying Saul to Damascus “saw the light” (Acts 22:9), but they saw “no one” (9:7).

But what about Luke and Saul’s different details regarding what the men heard? Did they stand speechless, “hearing (akouo) a voice” (9:7) as Luke recorded, or did they “not hear (akouo) the voice of Him who spoke,” as Paul informed the Jerusalem mob in Acts 22:9? If it could be proven that the Bible writers never used words figuratively and/or in different senses, then skeptics would certainly have a valid criticism. But as we’ve already seen, and as could be pointed out throughout Scripture (e.g., two different uses of the word “day” in one verse in Genesis 1:5), the Bible writers (and those whom they quoted) often used words in a variety of ways—just as mankind has for millennia. A husband may “hear” everything his wife says, but really not “hear” anything she says. A distracted high school student can “hear” everything his algebra teacher has taught during a given class period. But how will he answer his mother that evening when she sees him struggling with simple algebra equations and asks, “Did you not hear anything your teacher said today?” In a strictly literal sense, he could say, “I heard every word my teacher said.” However, in an appropriate, but figurative sense, he could say, “I didn’t hear anything she said.”

Interestingly, Jesus once spoke of those who, “seeing (blepo) they do not see (blepo), and hearing (akouo) they do not hear (akouo), nor do they understand (suniemi)” (Matthew 13:13). To whom was Jesus referring? Those individuals who could literally see and hear Him, but who did not understand Him—they did not see and hear Him in the deeper, more meaningful way that He desired. Of particular interest is the fact that Jesus used the Greek terms for seeing and hearing in different senses. If Jesus could use these words differently, pray tell, what would keep Luke and Saul from using them thusly?

Regarding Acts 9:7 and 22:9, Saul’s men obviously heard something (a sound of some kind; see Robertson, 1930, pp. 117-118), yet they did not hear (i.e., understand) the voice of the Lord as did Saul. What fair and just jury could not easily come to this same conclusion were Luke and Saul put on trial for their differences in the accounts of Jesus appearing to Saul and his men on the road to Damascus?

REFERENCE

Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

The post What Did Saul’s Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The phrase en pase ktisei (“to every creature,” NKJV) could just as easily (and accurately) be translated “in all creation” (ESV, NASB)—that is, Paul declared that “the gospel…has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (Colossians 1:23, ESV). Is it possible that some 30 years after Jesus’ resurrection and the establishment of the church that the early apostles, prophets, and evangelists had preached the Gospel “in all the world” (Colossians 1:6)—“in all creation under heaven”? Although admittedly, such a feat may seem quite unlikely, “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27). If Jesus could use His disciples to feed 5,000 men (plus the women and children) with only five loaves of bread and two fish (Matthew 14:19); if He could allow the apostle Peter to miraculously walk on water (Matthew 14:29); if God could use Peter and Paul to raise the dead (Acts 9:36-42; 20:10-12); if He could call “a man in Christ” (probably Paul) up into Paradise without killing him (2 Corinthians 12:1-6); if God could deliver His spokesmen from imprisonment and shipwreck (Acts 12:5-10; 27:13-44); if Jesus could miraculously ensure that the apostles could cast out demons, speak in tongues, and be unaffected by poisonous concoctions and venomous snakes (Mark 16:17-18; Acts 28:3-6)—it may very well be that by the time Paul wrote to the Colossians the Lord had miraculously and providentially helped Christians spread around the globe with the Gospel. After all, this was the commission given to the apostles—“Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15, ESV).

Most likely, however, when Paul wrote that “the gospel” had been preached “in all the world” (Colossians 1:6), “to every creature under heaven” (1:23), he merely was using a figure of speech known as hyperbole (exaggeration). Consider how people today will often make the statement, “Everyone knows that,” yet they do not literally mean that all seven billion-plus people on Earth actually know the subject matter being discussed. A frequent world traveler may say, “I’ve been all over the world,” but does not literally mean he’s been over every square mile of Earth. Similarly, the Bible writers often employed the same type of hyperbolic statements. Luke wrote that prior to the birth of Christ “a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered…. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city” (Luke 2:1,3, emp. added). It should be obvious that Luke did not literally mean that every single person in every country on Earth (even those outside the Roman Empire) were expected to be registered. Similarly, in Acts 2:5 Luke mentioned that on the Day of Pentecost “there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven” (emp. added). Although the Jews were dispersed in many countries around the world, it is likely that Luke merely used another hyperbolic statement to describe the various backgrounds among hundreds of thousands of Jews. There is no need to interpret Luke’s words to mean that Jews must have come from North America, South America, and Australia.

The fact is, “everyone” understands that Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:23 was intentionally exaggerated, at least to some extent. Even the skeptic would not contend that by indicating the Gospel had been preached “to every creature under heaven,” Paul meant that all of the animal kingdom had heard the Gospel. Most likely, the skeptic would not even demand that “every creature” (or “all creation”) must include infants, the mentally ill, etc. Although “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), Paul’s statement was not meant to be taken strictly literal. Most likely, Paul was merely using hyperbole to communicate an astounding truth: the then-known world (of both Jews and Gentiles) had been exposed to the Good News of Jesus Christ.

REFERENCES

Kuphaldt, Tony (2002), “The Word of the Lord,” The Secular Web, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/tony_kuphaldt/word.html.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

The post To Every Creature Under Heaven? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Living as we do in the 21^st century, we fail to remember or recognize that time has not always been reckoned the way it is today worldwide. We are able to calculate quickly the time anywhere in the world. For example, if it is 9:00 a.m. in Montgomery, Alabama (which is on Central time), it is 10:00 a.m. in New York City (which is on Eastern time), 3:00 p.m. in London, and 12:00 midnight in Sydney, Australia. Not so in antiquity. The ancients used a variety of systems by which they reckoned time.

A careful study of the biblical text reveals the fact that John (who wrote near the end of the first century, several years after the writings of the synoptic writers, away from Palestine, and addressing an eclectic, Hellenistic audience) based his calculations on Roman civil time. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the other hand, computed their allusions to days and hours according to Jewish time (cf. Smith, 1869, 2:1102; Robertson, 1922, p. 285; Lockhart, 1901, p. 28; Geisler and Howe, 1992, p. 376; Brewer, 1941, pp. 330-331; McGarvey, 1892, 2:181-182).

In light of these facts, read the context of John’s allusion to the “sixth hour”:

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!” Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away (John 19:13-16, emp. added).

John does not actually refer to the hour of the crucifixion, but only to the proceedings leading up to the crucifixion, specifically, the general timeframe when Pilate handed Jesus over to the Roman guards to commence the execution procedures. At this point, there yet remained the torturous, time-consuming journey to the place of execution. These events began to occur “about” 6:00 a.m.

Mark’s account reads as follows:

Then they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross. And they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull. Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it. And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take. Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him (Mark 15:21-25, emp. added).

Using Jewish reckoning, Mark’s “third hour” is 9:00 a.m.—three hours after John’s “sixth hour” (see also Miller, 2007). Ample time is provided for the events leading up to the actual crucifixion, the proper sequence is preserved, and the Bible’s pristine historicity is vindicated.

It is truly tragic that skeptics are so bent on discovering discrepancies in inspired writ that they manifest such extreme prejudice. An honest, unbiased individual will take the time to examine the details of Scripture and extend a fair hearing to its record—the same fairness that the skeptic desires for himself. Despite the ongoing assault of those who view the Bible with disdain—an assault that has spanned two millennia—the Bible remains unscathed in its claim to be of divine origin.

REFERENCES

Brewer, G.C. (1941), Contending For the Faith (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Geisler, Norman and Thomas Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton: IL: Victor).

Lockhart, Clinton (1901), Principles of Interpretation (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.

McGarvey, J.W. (1892), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Miller, Dave (2007), “Sunday and the Lord’s Supper,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1254&topic=288.

Robertson, A.T. (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper & Row).

Smith, William (1869), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton).

Wells, Steve (2013), The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/hour.html.

The post At What Hour was Jesus Crucified? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Admittedly, there are times when such statements are uttered by someone who is simply lying. However, there are occasions when two contrasting statements may both genuinely be true—such as when the claims are made in different senses.

Consider, for example, hearing someone talk about the 1990 Missouri-Colorado college football game. With only about 30 seconds left to go in the game and Missouri winning 31-27, Colorado had the ball, first and goal at the Missouri three yard line. Colorado elected to spike the ball on first down in order to stop the clock. On second down they ran the ball, but failed to score. They ran the ball again on third down. And, to stop the clock, they spiked the ball on fourth down with only two seconds left. They then ran the ball on “fifth down” and scored. The game was over at that point. According to the referees, Colorado had won the game 33-31. But did they really “win”?

As any football fan knows, a team only gets four downs to make a first down (or to score a touchdown if they are inside of the 10 yard line). “Fifth down” does not exist in football. The referees had forgotten to count one of the downs. Subsequently, the only reason Colorado “won” the game was because they were given an extra down in the final three seconds.

Imagine listening to a University of Missouri football player from that 1990 team talk about their game with Colorado. He may talk about their defeat at the hands of Colorado that year. However, he may also tell people that “Missouri actually won the game.” Why could he make both statements and still be telling the truth? Though, technically, the referees awarded Colorado the victory, everyone knew that, in reality, Missouri had won the game. Thus, in one sense Missouri “lost,” and in another sense they “won.”

What does all of this have to do with the Bible? There are times in Scripture where different statements are made, which on the surface sound contradictory, yet when the reader looks more deeply into the text, he realizes that such different statements were made for different reasons and in different senses. For example, why did Jesus say, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true” (John 5:31, emp. added), but also say, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true” (John 8:14, emp. added)? Was He a liar, as some skeptics insist? Or could it be that He was using these words in different senses? The fact is, Jesus had different purposes for why He said what He did. In John 5, Jesus was speaking to a group of hostile Jews regarding God the Father and His own equality with Him (John 5:17-30; cf. 10:30). In this setting, He defended His deity by pointing to several witnesses, including John the Baptizer, the Father in heaven, and the Scriptures (5:33-47).

When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not true,” He was not confessing to being a liar. Rather, Jesus was reacting to a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case (Robertson, 1997). “Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else” (Morris, 1995, p. 287). The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. Matthew 18:15-17). The Pharisees understood this law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). In John 5:31, “Jesus points to the impossibility of anyone’s being accepted on the basis of his own word…. He is asserting that if of himself he were to bear witness to himself, that would make it untrue” in a court of law (Morris, p. 287). If Jesus had no evidence in a trial regarding His deity other than His own testimony about Himself, His testimony would be inconclusive. Jesus understood that His audience had a legal right to expect more evidence than just His word. In accordance with the law, His own testimony apart from other witnesses would be considered invalid (or insufficient to establish truth).

But why is it that Jesus said to the Pharisees at a later time that His “witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Even if in a court of law two witnesses are required for a fact to be established (a law Jesus enunciated a few verses later in John 8:17), that law does not take away the fact that Jesus was telling the truth. Jesus declared His testimony to be true for the simple reason that His testimony revealed the true facts regarding Himself (Lenski, 1961, p. 599). He then followed this pronouncement of truth with the fact that there was another witness—the Father in heaven Who sent Him to Earth (8:16-18). Thus, in actuality, His testimony was true in two senses: (1) it was true because it was indeed factual; and (2) it was valid because it was corroborated by a second, unimpeachable witness—the Father.

Why is it that in the 21^st century we can use words and expressions in so many different ways and have little trouble understanding each other, but when Jesus or the Bible writers used words in different senses, so many people want to cry “foul”? Could it be because modern-day skeptics refuse to allow Jesus and the inspired writers the same freedoms to use words and phrases in different ways? Could it be due to unfair bias on the part of Bible critics?

God the Father (John 8:18; 5:37-38), along with John the Baptizer (John 5:33), the miracles of Jesus (5:36), the Scriptures (5:39), and specifically the writings of Moses (5:46), all authenticated the true statements Jesus made regarding His deity. Sadly, many of His listeners rejected the evidence then, just as people reject it today.

REFERENCES

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Robertson, A.T. (1997), Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

The post How Could Both Statements Be True? appeared first on Apologetics Press.