2. An interesting truth found here is that even though Herod had married his brother's wife (Mark 6:17), John the Baptist was still telling him that he was in adultery, and that it was not right for him "to have his brother's wife." Giving the impression that she was, in God's eyes, still married to Herod's brother, Philip. (Also, see, Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:16 and Matthew 19:6.)
The tragedy comes when this is understood in the light of the verse in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Jeremiah 3:1.
3. In the Jewish tradition, even up to the present, the first five books of the Bible are split up into weekly portions, each portion assigned to a specific week. The portion referenced here may have been the one assigned for that week, which makes it interesting when we consider how it fit so perfect into Jesus' ministry at that specific time.
4. The Greek literally reads, "broken to pieces." But it can also mean, "oppressed from abuse." Being broken to pieces can be from abuse.
5. There has been much needless confusion concerning this passage. There are those who bring up an unfounded conflict concerning the phrase, "to set free those who are downtrodden (NASB)," and the Isaiah passage Jesus is quoting. Isaiah seems to be using a somewhat different expression than what Jesus said in Luke, when He is recorded as reading ". . ;. . ;. to proclaim freedom to the captive." In Isaiah 61:1 it is worded, ". . . to bind up the brokenhearted."
And so because of these differences, some people have speculated that Jesus, instead of reading directly from Isaiah 61:1-2, had concocted a version of this passage for Himself to better suit His purposes. In essence, reinterpreting scripture to say what would benefit Him.
But if Jesus really did read the scroll of Isaiah and altered it to fit His ministry, that would make Him – and so the argument goes – out to be more of an opportunist, rather than Him being the actual fulfillment of the Bible's prophecies. However, as we will see, this is not the case at all.
Another way to put it is, if Jesus really did read the scroll of Isaiah, it should not have the differences that appear to be in the comparison of these two renderings of this verse. In other words, there should be no difference between what Jesus read and what we now read in Isaiah 61:1-2. And, as we will see, the fact is, Jesus does exactly as Luke says. He reads directly from the scroll of Isaiah and then sits down.
To understand this, let's look at the original languages used in these texts. The Greek in Luke's book literally reads ". . . to release the broken." while in the Hebrew, in Isaiah, it reads, "to bandage up the brokenhearted." Two seemingly different ideas produced by the two opposite sounding words "bandage" and "release."
However, if we look at these verses closer we can see that they are actually two idiomatic expressions that convey the same thought. The word "release" in the Greek, can also be translated "to relieve." And therefore, this phrase can also be properly translated, "to relieve the broken" – Luke leaving off the word "heart," leaving it as implied.
And the reason the word bandage can mean "to be released" is because to bandage up would be, in essence, bringing relief to an injured person.
There are, however, a couple of other things to be noted about this verse. First, when we consider the idea that some believe that the New Testament writers were using the Septuagint when they would quote the Old Testament, consider if this is indeed the case, compare Luke 4:18 with Isaiah 61:1, we can see that this is not so. Because although they say exactly the same thing, they used different Greek words to say it.
For example compare this phrase, first in Luke and then in the Septuagint's translation of Isaiah 61:1:
Luke:
Sent me those broken to pieces to release
"aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei"
Isaiah 61:1:
Sent me to heal of those rubbed together of the heart
"apestalken me, iasasthai tous suntetrimmenous te kardia"
This may be evidences that at least Luke's gospel was originally written in Hebrew. After which, someone had then translated it into Greek without having access to the Septuagint.
You can see that this is the case because of the replacement of the phrase, "to bandage up the broken hearted (the Hebrew of Isaiah)" with the Greek, "to relieve those who are broken [in the heart] (the possible translation of Luke's originally written in Hebrew Gospel);" rather than the Septuagint's wording, "heal those who are rubbed together of the heart."
If Jesus had read this out of the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew writing of Isaiah, Luke's account would not be so close (even though it is now written in Greek) to the wording as it is in the book of Isaiah. In fact, it would be worded exactly like the Septuagint instead. But it's not.
The second point to be noted is the difference between the Textus Receptus Greek text (the Greek text the KJV and NKJV uses) and the Nestle Aland Greek text (the text the NASB and the NIV use).
For it seems that those who had the Greek text from way back noticed this difference we have been talking about, but they could only figure that the way to correct the apparent differences – not understanding idioms and how they translate into another language – took the liberty of inserting the phrase, "to heal the brokenhearted." Adding this phrase to make it match the Hebrew verse in Isaiah 61:1.
Because if you look at the KJV or the NKJV, you can see that not only does Luke 4:18 has the phrase the NASB uses, "to set free those who are downtrodden," but it also has the added phrase, "to heal the brokenhearted," apparently trying not to take out what some say was Jesus' addition to Isaiah 61:1 and adding the seemingly missing phrase from Isaiah's book – "to heal the brokenhearted."
It simply boils down to this: They did not understand the Greek idiom that had been used to translate the Hebrew idiom "to bandage the brokenhearted," and so they added the part they thought was missing – ". . . in the heart."
I know it can seem confusing, so look at it this way, the bolded text being the portion that was added:
"He has sent Me . . . To set free those who are downtrodden, (NASB)."
"He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, . . . To set at liberty those who are oppressed; (NKJV)."
6. There seems to be a contradiction here because it says they were gracious words that He had said, and, also, that these words had offended the people. But how could gracious words offend anybody? Well, to understand this, consider the following verse,
For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).
7. I used to think that when Jesus said, "Physician heal yourself," He was making a type of prophecy about what they were going to say to Him while he was on the cross, when they said at His crucifixion ""You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross (Matthew 27:40)."
Now, however, I believe that what He meant was, they would, after seeing Him heal everybody else, and that He was not healing people from His own town of Nazareth, say to Him, "You, Physician, are the one that needs to be healed. For you are not doing what we think you should be doing – healing people 'here in your own country (Luke 4:23).'"
We can partially see this when Jesus' mother and brothers had come to "take charge of Him" in Mark 3:21 – because they thought He was out of His mind.
8. "For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country (John 4:44, NASB)."
This statement, though it can be taken, from a quick reading, as a flippant remark, ends up being a very strategically added detail by the Holy Spirit. Concerning this task of weaving the Gospels, it eventually became an important marker for directing the piecing of them together. For there was a dilemma, it seemed at first, with where to place the time Jesus' disciples began to follow Him.
For example, in John 1:35-51 there is an account that seems to indicate that the disciples began to follow him at this point – Peter and Andrew's names even being mentioned. On the other hand, there is also the account in Matthew 4:18-20, Mark 1:16-18, and Luke 5:1-11 where it actually does say that Peter, James, John, and Andrew had "dropped everything and followed him." Having these two accounts giving the impression that Jesus had called them at two separate times.
These two accounts also having no possibility, without extreme contradiction, of being spliced together as one.
For one thing, John's account happened outside of Galilee (1:43), while they were in Judea, and, Matthew, Mark, and Luke's account happened while they were in Galilee, out by the sea when they were fishing. Therefore, the dilemma ended up being, which one happened first?
Now it may seem obvious in retrospect, but at the time, it was very difficult to see without having more scriptural indication. And the verse in John 4:44 became the turning point. For if you follow the account in John's book, when they were in Judea, you can see that the sense of the text is that Peter did not actually follow him at that time. This can also be seen by his remark, just before Jesus actually did say, "follow me," when Peter said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" This is a statement that would imply that Peter had already known Jesus and some of what He was about." He had already witnessed Jesus at John's baptism account. (This is not even considering that claim that Jesus and Peter were probably cousins.)
Therefore, when Peter was first introduced to Jesus as the Messiah (in John's account), he probably had no intention of following him as Andrew, Nathanael, and Philip had (John 1:40-43). As a matter of fact, it even says, in John's account, that Philip was the only one Jesus told to follow Him at this point (v. 43).
So what does the phrase, "Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country" have to do with it? Well, it is an indication that at least John had not been present at this particular incident when Jesus went to Nazareth and was rejected by his own people, which directly followed the time Philip was called. John was only able to say, "Jesus Himself testified . . ." – a testimony being a statement from a witness to someone who did not actually see the event himself.
Therefore, Peter would not have been following Jesus at this point either, since John and Peter both dropped everything at the same time to follow Jesus.
All these things and more, as described in the preface, give us evidence that John and Peter did not drop everything and follow Jesus until after Jesus is rejected in Nazareth for the 1st time.
9. Here, Matthews says "Kingdom of God" and Mark says "Kingdom of Heaven."
This, however, is not a contradiction for the simple fact that these were, and still are, considered to be synonymous. As far as I have heard, it became synonymous because of the practice of the Jews to avoid saying God's name in vain, which was something they did in supposed obedience to the third of the Ten Commandments. The same way we say "Lord" rather than God's self-proclaimed personal name Yhvh.
Therefore, instead of saying "Kingdom of Yhvh," they would say "Kingdom of God;" or to avoid even using the word God, would say "Kingdom of Heaven." In fact, Matthew's Gospel, written to Jews by a Levite, almost universally uses the phase "Kingdom of Heaven," while the other three use only the phrase "Kingdom of God."
11. The Greek says, "the seventh hour." Also, see endnote 2:35.
12. This text is specific in mentioning that it was Jesus' second sign in Galilee. This does not exclude Him from having done other sings in Jerusalem also, prior to this point. Which is, in fact, what we do find when we see the entire context of Jesus' ministry.
13. This expression, "They were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen" could be taken either of two ways: Either as a general statement, such as saying, "so and so was casting a hook into the water because he was fishing." (Although, in reality, he could have actually been putting the worm on the hook at the time.) Or it could be taken as that, at the point in time the witness of this account is referring to, they actually were physically "casting the net into the sea."
The problem comes when we read the other eyewitness account that says how "there were two boats on the shore (one boat owned by Peter and Andrew, and the other owned by John and James) but that the fishermen had stepped from their boats and were washing and mending their nets (GDT 3:20)." One testimony says that they were in their boats and the other says that they had stepped out of their boats.
But since life is not a snap shot and is more like a moving picture, it can easily be seen that though they all were, according to each eyewitness' reference, in the process of washing and mending their nets. The other eyewitness account was describing what had happened just before this when two of the four fishermen were making their last attempt by casting a net into the water from the shore, since they had "caught nothing" that whole night (Luke 5:5), and the other two were in their boat mending their nets.
In other words, one witness is describing what it looked like when Jesus first arrived on the scene. Peter and Andrew were on the shore casting their nets in the water, either cleaning them or making a last attempt at getting a catch, while John and James were in their boat mending their nets. Then another eyewitness is describing the scene after Jesus had been there for a little while teaching the people by the point the eyewitness is describing. He is describing the scene as it was after John and James had stepped out of their boat from mending the nets, and when they were now on the shore, perhaps casting their nets as a last attempt at catching something, or washing their nets in the water's edge.
Therefore, there is no contradiction. Each different eyewitness starts to describe the scene at a slightly different point of time within the whole event. And this is the sequence that was used to smoothly weave this portion of the Gospels together.
Consequently, putting the two different accounts together as I did, necessitated the addition of the words "by now" to describe the fact that the men had once been in the boat, but were eventually out of the boat cleaning their nets, accommodating both eyewitness accounts.
Another point to note is the differences in the expressions, "let down the nets for a catch" (Luke 5:4), and "casting a net into the sea." Casting a net and letting one down would give us two completely different pictures. The first expression is used for describing the fishermen on the shore casting a net into the sea and the second describing the fishermen in their boats dropping the nets for a catch.
Another aspect to think about is, Matthew (in 4:18) chose to use two different words – just a sentence apart – for the word "net." They were the words amphiblestron meaning "something thrown around," and diktua meaning "a net" or a "cast (as in something to cast)." The first word being used when he said, "they were casting a net (amphiblestron) into the sea," and the second being used when he says, "they left their nets (diktua) and followed Him (Vs. 21)."
The reason this may be important is because Matthew probably chose this first word to compliment the activity of Peter and his brother Andrew standing in the shallow water, casting a net into the sea (One on either side of a net, casting it into the water.) and the other word to just describe the nets in general.
14. See paragraphs 2-6 of the endnote directly above.
15. It was necessary for making things clearer – according to the context – to put Luke 4:31a here instead of in verse 26.
16. The word "Gennesaret" is translated at this point in order to keep the reading from sounding redundant. It is already clear in the paragraph above this one that the lake is Gennesaret.
17. The original text, in its generalization at this point, says, "the fishermen had stepped out of [their boats] and were washing [their nets]."
But once this portion in Luke is woven with the other gospel accounts, the context now has more specific details that then necessitates adding the words "by then" to have it flow together better with the context.
18. Beginning with Luke 5:1, which contains the account of Jesus calling Peter, John, Jacob, and Andrew to follow Him, Luke has it slightly out of sequence. He does place it along with the things that happened at this point in Jesus' Ministry, but he tags it onto the end instead of having it as preceding them, which is where it belongs sequentially.
Luke's integrity remains, however, because he does preface the account of Jesus calling these particular disciples with the somewhat vague phrase that essentially means "Around this time."
They are the Greek words egeneto de en to ton oxlon, and they can be translated literally as "And then it happened into [those days] the crowd . . .". The New English Standard Version even translates these words as "On one occasion . . . (The Life Discover Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) Copyright © 2005 by Crossway Bibles, a publication ministry of Good News Publishers.)."
19. The Greek just says "they" for what is put as "Peter and Andrew." We know that these two were the "they" because the text says one was Peter." And we know that Peter and Andrew were a team.
21. "Aghh! . . . " Yes, this is in the Greek. It is the word "hea" and it means "ah ha!" It is an "interjection expressing surprise, indignation or fear (Vine, W. E., Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981.)."
22. There are details God has put into the Bible that seem to have no other reason other than to help us know the chronology of certain events. One such detail is in John 4:54 where we are told that Jesus' healing of the "Nobleman's son" was only the second sign Jesus had done since He came back down to Galilee from Judea.
The first sign was the time Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. And the fact that it was the 1st sign, has no spiritual significance, principally speaking. That is, it gives us no spiritual principal to live by.
Therefore, the only reason I can see for it being there is to help us in understanding the chronology of the events as they are recorded in each of the four Gospels. It is almost like God put details such as these in the Bible with the foreknowledge that people would then try to piece them together. Either that or it was His intention from the beginning to have the accounts written in a way that would allow a blending of the details for a fuller picture.
To me, I have to admit, it sounds like a petty thing for God to be concerned about putting details in the Bible for that purpose, but so would "counting all the hairs of your head."
Let us demonstrate with the current portion in the Gospels, where, aside from giving us, as Luke puts it, "certainty of those things (Luke 1:4)," it says how Jesus performed the miracle of healing Peter's mother-in-law. Because if the 1st sign He did in Galilee was turning the water into wine (John 2:11), and the 2nd sign was healing the Nobleman's son (John 4:54), that would automatically make Him healing Peter's mother-in-law no less than the third miracle, and would thus be after the two events specifically mentioned as being His 1st and 2nd signs in Galilee.
Therefore, Jesus healing Peter's mother-in-law (something that had happened after Jesus had called Peter to follow Him) had to, based on the detail given above, happen after Jesus had turned the water into wine and not before.
This gets even more significant if we follow the narrative as it is when all four gospels are pieced together. When we think through details similar to the one stated above and find that Peter, James [Jacob], John, and Andrew were not called until just prior to coming into Peter's house, when Jesus healed Peter's wife's mother – knowing this, we can now see that it is most likely that Peter, Jacob, John, and Andrew were also not at the wedding in Cana, and that is why John uses the words "For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country (John 4:4)."
This also helped to identify that there were in actuality two separate times that Jesus taught in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30 and Matthew 13:53-58 with Mark 6:1-6). The Matthew and Mark accounts say that Jesus had healed only a few people, making it not possible to have happened before Jesus had done His second sign in Galilee. (For further explanation, please see the section of the preface titled Detail In the Gospels That Show Forth a Specific Chronology.)
Nevertheless, I have, more than anything, come to understand in a deeper way the intentionally planned acts of Jesus – things that, thus, illustrate His character of being God in the flesh.
Nothing He did was happenstance. It was all well-calculated and acted out. In fact, we see this in how Jesus, at several times beforehand, told the twelve disciples that He was going to be crucified and raised again from the dead on the third day. How could He so confidently state that unless He was in control? It is also, as the men in the boat had said, "who is this man that even the winds and the sea obey Him (Matthew 8:27)?"
Therefore, seeing that He was in total control during His life, this necessitates that He had total control before His incarnation, after His resurrection, and when the eyewitnesses were led to put every detail into the Gospels as they have been. We serve an omnipotent savior. And in His sovereignty He has given us details in each Gospel to know that Jesus healing Peter's mother-in-law happened after His 2nd sign in Galilee, which was the healing of the Nobleman's son. Again, the 1st was in Cana (John 2:11) and the second the healing of the Nobleman's son. All other signs done in Galilee after these two.
23. In the Greek of Mark and Luke for the sun setting, Luke uses the present, active, indicative, participle, and Mark uses the aorist, active, indicative. (Aland, Kurt, Black, Matthew, Martini, Carlo M., Metzger, Bruce M., and Wikgren, Allen, The Greek New Testament, (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart) 1983.)
In both cases, however, they can be translated properly with the idea that it was presently active – in the process of setting, back on that day. Though we may not know if it was in the beginning, middle, or end of the sun's setting process at that particular eyewitnesses account.
Also, consider this: Mark did not say, "and it was dark" as it does say in John 6:17.
25. The Nestle Aland Greek text reads, "throughout all Judea." But the most reliable texts say, "throughout all Galilee." The context even indicates He was in Galilee, at the time, and not Judea. The statement "throughout all Judea" is most likely a latter addition by someone outside of Israel who saw the whole land of Israel as Judea.
26. The Greek literally reads, "through days."
28. The Greek here literally reads, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," but in the Hebrew of Hosea 6:6, which is what Jesus is quoting, it reads, "I desire mercy more than sacrifice."
Isn't it true that God does take pleasure when we sacrifice something for someone else? – and the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary.
God may not have desired it to be that way, but we did need a sacrifice for our sins. It was necessary that, seeing our condition of desperate separation from Him, God desired to sacrifice of Himself to redeem His people from the fruitless deeds of darkness.
What God does not want is a sacrifice without mercy, for mercy is the very essence of sacrifice. If someone sacrifices something to receive something in return, that is no sacrifice. And if someone is sacrificing something in order to rub it into the recipient, God does not take in part of that.
God demonstrates in the sacrifice of Jesus that the sacrifice was necessary, but it also demonstrates that it was for the sake of Him being merciful to us. Should we not do the same – sacrifice, but not without mercy?
29. After knowing that the Greek word used here is sporimown, and that it means a "sown field," consider this verse:
30. The Greek here literally means "to know again" or "to recognize."
32. As indicated in John 12:34, we understand that the title "Son of Man" was not just to say he was born from a woman. "Son of Man" was a specific title for the Messiah.
33. At this point, the Greek word is child (pais), which was, in the Jewish culture, equivalent to being a slave. (That is, until the point the child inherits the father's estate.) It is translated in this publication as "servant," like many others, because it is the word used in Isaiah 42:1, which is the verse being quoted here in the Gospels.
34. The Greek of Matthew 12:20 is worded ". . . until justice is thrown out into victory," while in the Hebrew of Isaiah 42:4, which is what is being quoted here, it is worded "until justice is put on the earth."
What makes this so interesting is that in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Torah and The Prophets, it reads just like Isaiah's portion in the Hebrew, and not like Matthew's in the Greek.
What that means is, in Matthew, this is either the author's interpretation of Isaiah 42:4, or it is a Hebrew idiom that was not present during the time it was originally written by Isaiah, but was much later on in Jesus' day.
That is, the phrase "until justice is thrown out into victory" was not a figure of speech for saying "until justice is put on the earth," during the days of the writing of Isaiah. But it was during the days of the writer of this Gospel, which is Matthew. Therefore, Matthew is probably using a common figure of speech from his day to translate Isaiah 42:4, and he was not using the Septuagint.
35. In Isaiah 42:4, the verse that is quoted here, rather than saying ". . . will trust in his name," as it is in the Gospels, says, ". . . will trust in his law (author's paraphrase)."
But we also must remember that the Hebrew word that is inaccurately translated as "law" would more accurately be translated as "instruction."
At first glance, this may seem to be an opportunist's chance. That is, it could be assumed that the Gospel writers were taking advantage of the chance to apply this prophecy of the nations trusting in God's law to applying it for someone to trust in Jesus instead.
However, we need to consider that a name in that culture, as it can also be understood today, was not just a word people used to identify someone. A name carried with it the whole character of the person. For example, we say, "He made a name for himself."
Well this is what the Torah is, it is a record of God's name (or character) as it was instructed to us, and as it is manifested in Jesus. And it is also interesting that the New Testament writer saw God's name as synonymous to His law.
36. For the two words used here as "His disciples," the Greek plainly says "them," which was referring to His disciples.
37. This word boanerges, found in the Greek text of Mark's gospel, comes from the Hebrew language and from the two words ben, meaning son and rogez, meaning rage. The word rogez is also used in the following verses:
38. Nathaniel is believed to be Bartholomew because, throughout the Gospels, Bartholomew is always associated with Philip in the Synoptics, and Nathaniel is always associated with Philip in the book of John. And none of the Gospels ever mentions a Bartholomew in contrast to a Nathaniel or vise versa. In each of the Gospels, either Bartholomew is named and there is never a mention of any Nathaniel, or Nathaniel is named without any mention of a Bartholomew. In simpler terms, Nathaniel and Bartholomew are most likely one and the same person.
39. This is not the same Alphaeus that was Matthew's father. In the culture of the Gospels, the reason people would say so and so "son of" so and so was if the name of the person being discussed was a very common name, such as are Jacob or Levi. Therefore, whenever they would refer to Matthew as "Levi" they would then add "son of Alphaeus." For example, compare Matthew 9:9, and Mark 2:14.
40. Mark, very interestingly, uses the transliteration of the Hebrew word for zealous (cananaion) here, rather than the Greek word zelowten – the word from which we get our word "zealous." (Zelowten also being the word Luke uses in this instance.)
41. This phrase, ". . . who also became a traitor" is worded in the Greek as, ". . . who betrayed Him" or ". . . who handed Him over." Also see the endnote directly below.
42. The Greek word used in this portion in the Gospel of Mark is simply the word paradidomi, and is a verb meaning "to hand over." In Luke's gospel it is the noun prodates, meaning "a betrayer."
43. The phrase translated here as, "He looked out toward His disciples" is, in the Greek, an idiom borrowed from the Hebrew language. In fact, as I understand it, it is not found in any other Greek writings.
It literally reads "He lifted up His eyes."
44. The Greek word, translated, "being come along side of," is the word that comes from two other Greek words. They are para, meaning "along side of" and kaleo, meaning "to call." When you put them both together they mean, "called along side of." Generally, this is in order to help someone, and it is also translated correctly as "encourage."
In the case of rich people, this is probably one of the most tragic things that happen to them. They, generally speaking, have no true friends to come along side of them.
45. If this verse is considered with the attempt to keep it logical, you can see a problem with the way it is popularly translated.
To demonstrate, think about salt in the terms of how it is used to flavor food. Have you ever heard of a way that salt can become tasteless and people, therefore, cast it out into the street to be trampled by men? I never have.
What I have heard is that salt can become useless when it is used, as it was in those days, as a way to preserve food. What they used to do is rub salt into meat as a form of preservation. And after it had been used in this way, it became useless. Consequently, it was thrown out into the streets to be trampled by men, as this verse says.
Consequently, we should then be forced to ask what the Greek word in this verse is that we see translated as tasteless, saltiness, and savour or flavor (depending on the translation you are using). And it is a peculiar word.
It is also a strange word, in my opinion, to use in this verse, as Jesus has. It is the Greek word that is translated as "foolish" or "stupid" in every other place where it is found in biblical literature.
Therefore, the literal translation of this verse is now, "If salt has become foolish, what good is it? . . ." And this does take the strain out of the verse that exists when this word is translated as "tasteless" instead.
When translated correctly, it puts the salt back in the realm of being used for the purpose of preservation, rather than restricting it to the use of flavoring food. If salt that is used to preserve food becomes foolish, it is no longer good for any use and is, therefore, cast out into the streets to be trampled by men.
This leads directly into the next part of the verse that is popularly translated as ". . . how can it be made salty again (author's paraphrase)?"And this, too, is not exactly the translation here. The literal translation is ". . . in what will it salt?"
Therefore, the best way to translate this verse once the original language, and also the logical flow in English, are considered is: "If the salt becomes useless, what will it salt?" which is how it is translated in this book.
And the simple point Jesus is making is if we as believers become useless (not doing good works, which is the context of this passage, especially verse 16), then we will be of no use for the kingdom of God among men. (Also see endnote 7:60.)
46. Without a doubt we know that Jesus was not saying that the law to not commit adultery, for example, was no longer in effect, but what He was doing is saying that the way they were interpreting the law not to commit adultery was incomplete. It was and is that if a man even looked at a women lustfully that they were committing adultery.
At another point, when talking about poking a person's eye out in revenge, Jesus was telling them that that was not what was intended by that law (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus. 24:20, Deuteronomy. 19:21). An eye for an eye was always intended as a civil law to correctly compensate a person of someone who may have lost an eye by the fault of another. And man seeking revenge is never condoned in Scripture.
Therefore, according to salvation, Jesus has fulfilled the law in us. But as it says in other places, "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law (Romans 3:31, my translation)."
So then, salvation also includes producing righteousness in us. (See Psalms 119:126-128). The almighty living, holy, and eternal God who spoke His heart out to us on Mount Sinai, who now lives inside those who are known by Him (Galatians 4:9), desires to live in complete oneness and fellowship within us (John 17:22-23), which is defined for us in the law.
48. Several times Jesus makes the statement, "you have heard it said . . . but I tell you . . ." However, He is not saying – in saying this – that those things which they had heard were not true according to how they were intended when originally written in the Bible. Or that it is now obsolete (Matthew 5:17). What He was saying was, the people of that day either had a misunderstanding of it, or they did not take it to its fullest meaning.
For example, when He says, "you have heard it said 'you shall not commit adultery"' He is not saying that this is no longer true. What He had said was, "It is more than that. It is if you even think about committing adultery, it is just like doing it (Matthew 5:28, author's paraphrase)."
Now that may be obvious, but when He says, "you have heard it said 'an eye for an eye . . . (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21)'" that can be less obvious, or even confusing. However, what He is saying is, "you misunderstand what was said: That law was not given to give you permission to seek revenge – as you have been told by men or as your heart may tell you to interpret it (Judges 17:6, 21:25; Proverbs 12:15, 21:2, 30:12)" – it was given from God as a law to govern your lives in order to have a safe and justly-run community – especially now that some in your midst will not be authentically – or even children of the living God at all." And this is especially true when it comes to governing a whole nation, such as Israel.
A genuine believer would at least desire to live consistent with God's truth and would seek to compensate others for any loss they might cause someone, without being pressured into it. A born-again person would like to recompense someone they were responsible for the loss of their eye, for instance.
Yes, we as believers are no longer under this law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth if we truly are living above it. This law was made for the ungodly and the sinner (1 Timothy 1:9) – those who are still going around doing hateful things to others (in other words, "because of the hardness of their hearts God gave Moses that command (Matthew 19:8)).
We need laws to govern those who are living contrary to civil lives, or anarchy will reign. But for anyone who is living above this law and does not need his actions corrected, or to be kept responsible for the choices he makes, instead of seeking revenge (as men have interpreted that law), when someone slaps you on the one cheek, turn to him the other one also. For isn't it better to suffer for doing righteousness rather than evil (Matthew 5:38-39; 1 Peter 3:16).
Now I ask you: Do we not even still have this law? For we have even in our own secular legal system set up that if we are responsible for someone losing their eyesight, we are to compensate them for the price of that eye. In other words, "an eye for an eye."
The problem is, too many people are exercising this law frivolously, as we see in many lawsuits these days.
That is where the other end comes in. We should only be responsible for replacing the loss of an eye, and no more.
49. In the Hebrew, the word "expanse (the expanse being what Jesus had separated the waters below from waters above with (Genesis 1:6))" has the meaning of an offensive separation. It is as if you were to separate a banana from its banana peel by stomping your foot on it and swishing it around. This is the basic idea behind the Hebrew word that is pronounced raca.
This Hebrew word is also found in Job 37:18 when he says, "Can you, with Him [God], spread out [raca] the skies . . ." Remember, the sky is spread out with nothing to speak of, and this is why it is logical for them to have adopted this word into their vernacular for saying, "you are worthless," or "you are nothing."
50. There is a valley on the southern edge of the hill that ancient Jerusalem used to be built on called "Gehenna." (It is translated here from the Greek, rather than transliterated, in order to bring out the historical context better.) It is the word that has been translated as "hell" in the English translations. This valley, however, was where they also used to throw their garbage – a dump that was kept burning to always assure room for more.
Now when a Jew in those days – if he knew Scripture and his own history – thought about this garbage dump, he would have thought of it as more than just that. For in 2 Chronicles 33:1-6 we are told how judgment came to Israel through their king Manasseh – a wicked king who would, in this valley, "sacrifice his sons" to pagan gods.
And in fact, as a result of Manasseh's action, this valley's name, which is called the valley of Hinnom in Hebrew, was changed by God to the "valley of slaughter (Jeremiah 7:31-32)" – designating it as a place of judgment and torment, where there shall lay ". . . the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched (Isaiah 66:24)."
This is the verse Jesus quotes in Mark 9:47:
If your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell [Gehenna or Hinnom], where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
Also, I believe it is no coincidence that Annas' (the High Priest that sat over the first trial of Jesus – Caiaphas' father-in-law) and Caiaphas' tombs are seen even today in this valley, thus partially fulfilling Isaiah 66:24 quoted above. (http://www.answers.com/topic/caiaphas)
It is also important to note that Gehenna is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew words "gay," meaning "gorge" or "valley" and "Hinnom," the name of this valley. These two words make up the one Hebrew compound word, "GeHinnom." (This word is found in Joshua 15:8, 18:16, 2 Kings 23:10, Nehemiah 11:30 and Jeremiah 7:31 and 32).
We also get our word "Armageddon" in this same way. It is a Greek transliteration of the two Hebrew words "Har," meaning "mount" and "Megiddo," the name of the of that mountain. Put together it is HarMegiddo or ArMageddon.
52. This is the same as what we would say today, when we say, "nip it in the bud" or "knock it off."
54. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the only place where Moses gave any command concerning divorce. However, when we see this verse correctly, we can understand how Moses was not giving a command TO divorce, but that he was giving a command CONCERNING divorce because of the peoples hardness of their hearts – since they were going to get divorced anyway (Matthew 19:8).
This is also understood because the verse begins with the word "when." The word "when" assumes that divorce is already going to happen. And since people were already going to get divorced because of their hardness of heart, Moses was giving them the method it was to be done – not saying that God was intending for people to get divorced.
55. The Greek word for "committing" is in the present, active tense.
Also, consider the following verses:
An important point to recognize is that this verse does not say, "If a man divorces his wife because she has committed adultery he is free to remarry. What it does say is, if a man divorces his wife for any reason, he causes her to enter into the state of adultery – that is unless she has already placed herself in that state because of sexual immorality. (Also see endnote 3:2.)
57. The words translated from the Greek as "those hostile to you" are from the noun popularly translated as "enemy (exthron)." But for a more dynamic understanding, and one that is more in line with the definition of this Greek work, it is translated here as "those hostile to you."
58. There is a very old Jewish legend about Abraham: One day he invited a beggar into his tent for a meal. But when Abraham started to say a prayer to thank God for the food, the beggar began to curse God, saying that he could not stand hearing His name. Abraham kicked the beggar out of his house. Shortly after that, God appears to Abraham, as the story goes, and says, "This man has cursed me for fifty years and I still feed him every day; could you not have show him hospitality for just one day? You could have at least waited until after he had eaten before you kicked him out." (This is a legend and it is not in the Bible. Therefore, it may not be true. But it does accurately describe a biblical truth.)
59. This expression is an amplified translation of the phrase, "Your kingdom come."
60. God certainly does not tempt anyone. But it is possible that God could lead us into situations where we will be tempted by our own lusts. Consider this verse: ". . . I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these (Isaiah 45:6)."
61. This passage, inaccurately called "The Lord's Prayer," is found in two different contexts. The first is in Matthew in the midst of what is called "the Sermon on the Mount," and the other is in Luke towards the end of Jesus' ministry when His disciples come up to Him and requested, "teach us to pray."
But once I finally came to the point where I tried to find which location it actually came from, I could not come up with any other resolution because of the different ways each had lead into this comment, except that He had actually taught them this at both instances.
And it is plausible that Jesus had taught this towards the beginning of His ministry. But because His disciples had expected it to be a lot more complicated than He had first described it, they then asked Him again at the end of His ministry, hoping He may have a deeper explanation on how to pray.
On an added note, the NKJV also has the words "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen," but this is not in the Nestle Alan Greek text.
62. In these days we have an idiom for when someone refrains from hitting a bad pitch in baseball, or when someone hits the bull's eye in darts. We say, "you have a good eye." But in Jesus day, they neither had baseball nor darts.
An idiom is a word, or phrase, that represents something else and would, thus, appear ridiculous to someone outside of that culture – someone that is not familiar with that particular expression. But with this idiom, even though we are not from the ancient culture that Jesus was born into, we know what it means because we can see it used in the other biblical writings. We can see writers using idioms in rhymes where the writer would say the same thing twice. Not only would he say it twice, but he would also say it the second time using a whole other choice of words to say the same thing or complete the thought. This is a form of Hebrew poetry.
The particular one we are concerned with here is in Proverbs 22:9 where it says, "He who has a generous eye will be blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor (NKJV)." "He who has a generous eye" being the first line of the poem and "he gives of his bread to the poor" the second – the second shedding light on what was meant by the first. But the main point to make is that the Hebrew wording translated here as "generous eye" is actually from the Hebrew words for "good eye."
All of this is interesting, but the second half is what we are concerned about. For it says that when someone has a good eye, it means – according to a biblical perspective – that he was a generous person, a person "who gave to the poor (author's paraphrase)". If you were not a generous person, you would only give to "those who could repay you in some way (Luke 14:12-14)."
Where this gets interesting, then, is here in Matthew 6:22 where the Greek reads, "if you have a good eye, your whole body will be full of light." For these two words together, good and eye, can be translated one of several ways: as generous, pure, or good, etc. . . .
Now, therefore, knowing that it comes from a Hebrew idiom and that it means a person who is generous, we begin to better understand what Jesus is saying in this passage. In fact, this little parable of the "body being a lamp" (Matthew 6:22) now makes a lot more sense.
To further reinforce this, look at the parable just before it, when it talks about "laying treasures up in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21)." And also the passage right after it, with how "you cannot serve both God and money (Matthew 6:24)."
The immediate context in both before and after this parable is talking about money and wealth – two potential mediums of generosity. So then, any other interpretation of this little passage in Matthew 6:22 and 23 makes no sense whatsoever according to the context.
For a long time, I had thought that if you are looking at a bad TV show or something else bad your whole body would be full of darkness. Or if you were looking at a good thing, like scripture, your whole body would be full of light. Although those things are true, that is not what is being said in this passage.
If it were, it would be as if Jesus had no logical train of thought. It would be as if He were saying one thing and then, for no logical reason, start to say something totally unrelated; then after that go back to what He was saying at first. But that makes no sense.
64. Yes, Luke does say that he had perfect understanding with regards to the chronology of the events within Jesus' ministry (Luke 1:3), but there still is a large section of his book where he has put a lot of things Jesus said and taught without giving the chronological context originally surrounding them.
To see this, you have to read Luke's book, while following the narrative closely. And if you do, you will see that there is no specific narration from chapters eleven through nineteen. They are just a collection of a group of different things Jesus had said and taught.
For evidence, consider the statement in Matthew 12:46, where it says, "as he was saying this . . ." and then adds some narration.
This type of language is mostly absent in Luke, chapter 11 through 19. Therefore, this portion of Luke has been relocated to the place where Matthew does give the narration surrounding it.
65. "Mammon (mamona)" is the Greek word that is transliterated, rather than translated, in most translations. But it means "riches." (Also see Luke 12:32-34.)
66. The words, ". . . a verbal picture to go along with what He was teaching" is an amplified translation of the Greek word" parable (parabolé)," a word that comes from the two Greek words para, meaning "along side of" and ballo meaning "to throw (the word from which we get our word ball)."
This was the word used because a parable was a word picture that was thrown along side of a certain truth, in order to better illustrate the idea being taught. And that is why I translated it as ". . . to go along with what He was teaching."
67. Another way to understand the phrase ". . . what is holy" is that it is similar to saying ". . . things worth keeping," such as a pair of slippers that a dog would tear to pieces.
68. The context this verse is in dictates a very interesting interpretation. Nowhere in this passage can the idea of witnessing be found. The context is talking about sin.
We are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb! He has purchased us and made us into a precious stone. And if we give ourselves over to sin (sin being what a pig represents) we will be trampled by it. Therefore, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs (NKJV)" or "cast your pearls before swine (NKJV)."
Another way to interpret it is that the pig represents evil men, and if we give ourselves over to sin, then evil men will have opportunity to trample on us.
69. There is an interesting thought expressed here with the Greek word stene, which is translated as "narrow" in the English. And the idea being expressed here really comes out when we consider the Hebrew translation of this verse, which uses the word tsar. Because in the Hebrew, this word has a deeper meaning then simply the word "narrow." It also carries the idea of affliction.
For instance, if you look at the way the prophet Isaiah used the word tsar (30:20), you can see that another way it can be understood is by having the meaning of "adversity," as it is translated in Isaiah 30:20 of the NKJV version:
And though the Lord gives you The bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your teachers will not be moved into a corner anymore, but your eyes shall see your teachers.
That is to say, the Hebrew word tsar can mean "narrow" as well as "adversity." And that is the idea expressed here. In other words, the idea of "narrow" also signifies adversity. "Narrow" is an idiomatic expression that gives, in a Hebrew understanding, the picture of one going through adverse conditions.
70. The Greek word used here that is translated as ". . . say the same . . ." is the word homologeso, and it means exactly that. It is the combination of two Greek words to make one. The first word is the word from which we get the word "homo" (homou," meaning "the same," and the second word is logos, meaning "to speak," or "a word," which comes to us in the word "logic."
Translating this word may seem awkward, but if we consider what Jesus could be saying, it makes sense. For this is exactly what these people Jesus is referring to are saying, when they say, "didn't we do all these things in your name." For they are, in essence, saying, "We did not know you personally – have any form of personal relationship with you – but we did do all these things for your benefit."
The sense of the text is that they are admitting that they had done the things they did in honor of Jesus, but not that they had done them out of a relationship with Him. That is why Jesus will say the same thing to them at the judgment – "I never knew you [personally]."
71. According to John 2:20 it took forty-six years to build the Temple and the Temple Mount, which was one of the most magnificent man-made structures built.
When they did build it, they did it as any other educated builder would. They dug all the dirt out where they wanted to construct it until they hit bedrock, and then they would begin to build, building the foundation on rock. Therefore, when Jesus made this statement, it, no doubt, conjured up a very familiar and vivid picture in the minds of these people.
73. This is a very interesting account for more reasons than the obvious. For one thing it is included in all three of the synoptic Gospels. Another thing is that Matthew's placement gives some specific insight into why this particular healing was so significant.
Before we get into the contextual significance, though, we need to understand Mark and Luke's placement of this particular healing.
Starting with Mark's, it is important to point out that he gives no direct chronological placement. He puts it right after a general statement of his that Jesus had traveled throughout the cities of Galilee, and then prefaces this healing with the general remark, "And a leper came to him. . . . (1:40)"
With this account following such a generality, we are left to surmise that Jesus had encountered this leper at some time during this circuit throughout the cities of Galilee, but it leaves us without a specific time as to when within this circuit it happened. And when Mark leaves the account, he, again, gives no words that link this text to the following event in the narrative.
Similarly, Luke begins this healing of the leper with the general statement that Jesus had done this healing at sometime within His ministry in Galiliee when ". . . he was in one of the cities;. . ;. . . (5:12)", with no specific city mentioned. And he leaves the account, also, with the general statements that Jesus ". . . would withdraw to desolate places and pray." And that "On one of those days . . . (5:17)" with which Luke leads into the next healing in his account.
Mark's and Luke's generalities would be consistent with the fact that they were not actual eyewitnesses themselves. (For more concerning this, you can find it detailed in the Preface.)
This brings us to Matthew's interesting placement of this healing of the leper. Matthew, unlike Mark and Luke, does give us some specifics with regards to the chronological placement of this event. Matthew states emphatically that this man had come to Jesus just after He gave the Sermon on the Mount, as He was coming "down from the mountain. . . ."
Where it really gets interesting is when we get to the statement that Jesus made to the leper just after He healed him. Jesus said, "go, show yourself to the priest, and present the offering that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them (Mark 1:44)."
And what makes this so interesting is that it happens just shortly after Jesus had said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to complete it (Matthew 5:17, author's paraphrase), and that whoever does these things (referring back to His expounding of the law) would be like a wise man who built his house upon a rock (Matthew 7:24, author's paraphrase). (This passage in its entirety can be found in 3:93 and following of this publication.)
74. The Greek word here from Mark 1:40 that is translated as "what he wanted" is the word parakalown and is made up of two Greek words that mean "to call (calown)" and "along side of (para)."
It is a word popularly translated as beseech, comfort, or desire, ect. And this word has the idea of someone coming along side of someone for the purpose of comforting or encouraging them.
75. Or you could say, "the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the greatest man here".
76. If you were to go to Israel today you could not go without noticing how in the countryside, out in the fields, there are stones lying around literally all over the place.
Well, in biblical times, what a shepherd would do is clear out an area by piling up these stones, and use this as a wall around the area he had just cleared. They would build a wall around in a circle, all except for one gap, leaving it as a small opening to be used for the doorway. This was a sheep's pen.
Once having made this, the shepherd would, after bringing the sheep into the pen for the night, lie down in this gap and, literally, become the door. (That is if he is not "standing in the gap" at the time to fend off any predators.) In the morning, however, the shepherd would get up and, by doing this, open the doorway. Then, at the sound of his voice, the sheep would break forth out into the pasture.
The following verse is a good illustration of this:
The second half of this portion gives us a perfect picture of sheep that have been penned up all night, who would then, in the morning, leap fourth into the pasture. The word used to signify this is the word "breaker" or, as it is in Hebrew, poretz.
The way this helps us here is, it is the same word (or idea) that is used in the translation of Luke 16:16, where it is translated into english as, ". . . force his way into it."
This is so because when this word is translated from the Greek into the Hebrew – for any ancient or modern Hebrew speaking person – they would have used this word "breaker," or, rather, poretz
In other words, Luke 16:16 would read, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing [or breaking (poretz)] his way into it."
In other words breaking forth into the pasture of God's kingdom.
And that is the idea expressed when the gospels record that ". . . a persistent man seizes the opportunity afforded by it" – a persistent man will break out into the opportunities presented in the Kingdom of God. Before we come to faith in Jesus, we are like sheep penned up in the darkness of sin, but then when the Good Shepherd opens the passage for His sheep, those who are hungry will seize the opportunity afforded by the open door.
Also see John 10:2-4.
77. The following verse is one the first century Jews knew very well: "Behold I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5)." Now, however, when the disciples asked Jesus: "why, then, do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first (Matthew 17:10), that is why He responds, "Elijah has already come (speaking of John the Baptist), but they did not receive him (v. 12)."
And so it could then be taken that the real Elijah will not come at the end of the age because it was actually John the Baptist that that verse was referring to all along.
However, there is more to it. That is, just before that, Jesus said "Elijah WILL come, but John . . ." and so on. ;. . ;. . . ;. ." In other words, it was not that Elijah is not going to come anymore because John the Baptist came. But He is saying, "Elijah IS going to come, but John the Baptist came doing what Elijah is going to do, and he was rejected. So even if Elijah had come – which is what their hope is in – they would not have responded to his call. They would have rejected him also (author's paraphrase)."
To follow this further, look at the very last passage in the Scriptures just prior to Jesus' incarnation, where Malachi says, "He [Elijah] will restore the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers. So that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." In other words – as Jesus said – "Elijah did come, but they did not receive him (or heed his call). In fact they killed him." And hasn't the land been in a curse since John the Baptist. The land certainly has not been healed.
Elijah is still going to come, but this time he will turn the hearts of the Jews to God and then, as the NASB puts it, God "will NOT smite the land with a curse (author's emphasis)". Rather, this time He will heal the land. (See 2 Chronicles 7:14; Jeremiah 31:33; Isaiah 45:17 and 25; Jeremiah 23:6-7.) (Also, see endnote 5:49). John the Baptist did not accomplish this.
78. The term "this generation," in the Hebrew mindset, sometimes means "a type of people."
One example of this is in Psalms 24:3-6:
79. In the English, this verse being referenced to is translated from the Greek word for word, in both Matthew and Luke. But it is not word for word in the Greek text itself. In the Greek text, the authors used a slightly different choice of words to say the same thing. And this could be another evidence that both of them translated it from the same source, each one of them on their own.
80. An alabaster jar is a milky-white jar used for storing expensive perfume.
81. It does not appear to be inconsequential that Luke puts this record of the women who supported Jesus in His ministry, monetarily, right after the woman who had anointed His feet with oil – a woman forgiven of much sin. In fact, Luke even points out that Mary Magdalene was healed of seven demons (Luke 8:2). It goes even further than that. But it is something left for a later endnote. But if you can't wait, see endnotes 8:1, and 39.
82. This is the feast of Passover (see endnote number 1 of the preface).
83. The second half of John 5:3 and all of verse 4 are not included in the Nestle Alan Greek text. The NKJV does have them as such, ". . . waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had."
84. There is a very curious fact laced throughout the Scriptures prior to Jesus' first coming. That is, some people DID see God and live. In fact, it says that Samson's parents saw God and afterwards said, "We have seen God and lived" (Judges 13:21-22). One time it even went so far as Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel on Mount Sinai all seeing God. They even ate and drank with Him (Exodus 24:9-11).
Now, however, in the Gospels and the times of the Apostles, people say that God is Spirit and that no one has seen God at anytime; therefore, God does not have a body. I beg to differ. In fact, after Jesus was raised from the dead – now in His glorified body (John 17:5) – He told the disciples, "Look, I am not a ghost . . . I have flesh and bone as you can see . . . (L 24:39, author's paraphrase)." That is why the verse alluded to above continues by saying, ". . . . but He who is in the bosom of the father has revealed Him to us (John 1:18)."
Therefore, it was Jesus who had ate and drank with Moses and the seventy elders. And it was Jesus who went up to heaven in a flame in front of Samson's parents (Judges 13:17-19) (a picture of Him as our sacrifice). And although He did not have flesh and bone before the virgin conceived by the Holy Spirit, He had still revealed Himself in some form to Adam, Abraham, Moses, the seventy elders, and on and on. (But remember, no one has seen the Father's form, as we are told in John 5:37-40.)
However, we need to remember how it says in 1 Kings 8:27, when referring to the "Temple" – temples being what pagans built for their lifeless gods of wood and stone (while Solomon built a house for the One and only, living, and true God) as His house, which is what Jesus' body is now – "it cannot contain Him." In fact, even "the highest heavens cannot contain Him (1 Kings 8:27)." For God is much more than just Jesus. He is the Holy Spirit and our Father; He is all knowing and ever present.
It is no contradiction to say that Jesus is God and man. And since God is able to do whatever He wills over His creation, it is not hard to comprehend that He is completely capable of incarnating Himself in the likeness of human flesh. And that is why Jesus said; "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father. The Father and I are One (J 10:30)."
For the Lord our God is God alone (Deuteronomy 6:4, author's paraphrase).
Also, on a little side note, if you are talking to anybody who denies the deity of Christ because they think it is not possible for a person to be God and man at the same time, here are some things to think about: To say Jesus was God and not God at the same time, that would be a contradiction. But to say that He is both God and man, at the same time, presents no contradiction.
In fact, we see this kind of dual-identity in a lot of different things. One of them is how a mother of a child is also a child of a mother, or how she is both a mother and also a wife.
Anyway, if it presents no problem for God to have dwelled in a man-made temple, it is, therefore, not difficult to understand how He could then dwell in the body of a man. In fact, since He created everything out of nothing, He can then do anything He wills to within and among that creation – that DOES include taking on a physical body. But we need to remember, this type of understanding can only be attained by the renewing of the mind – by the Holy Spirit and God's word (Romans 12:2). For, in the natural mind, we cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).
85. The original text reads, ". . . but these are those that are testifying . . ." inserting the word "Scriptures," seems to make it flow better.
