Matthew 3:12 This verse seems to hint at an everlasting existence for unbelievers. Does the Bible really teach the immortality of the “soul”?
The first problem to address is the biblical definition of soul (psyche). In some passages the word applies the whole person (I Thessalonians 2:8); in others it (or “spirit”) is contrasted with the body (I Corinthians 7:34); and in yet others there appears to be a tripartite make-up of humanity: body, spirit and soul (I Thessalonians 5:23). However, even where there seems to be division within man, that does not indicate that a person is, for example, 50% soul and 50% body. We are, instead, 100% both at the same time. Each descriptive word is a way of viewing the whole person from a different perspective. Also, no supposed division should be taken to teach, as did the Greek dualists, that the physical is inferior to the spiritual. Both will have a part in the resurrection (See J. K. Chamblin, “Psychology” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp. 765-775 for a complete treatment of this subject.)
Paul makes an interesting statement in I Timothy 6:16 concerning Christ: “It is he alone who has immortality...” The Reformed scholar Anthony Hoekema states: “The Scriptures do not teach the continued existence of the soul by virtue of its inherent indestructibility...Since, according to the Scriptures, man has been created by God and continues to be dependent on God for his existence, we cannot point to any inherent quality in man or in any aspect of man which makes him indestructible.” (The Bible and the Future) But Paul does not stop there. In II Timothy 1:10 he states that immortality can be conveyed to believers: “Christ abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”
But what of non-believers? Do they also have an immortal existence through Christ's abolition of death? Many, but not all, who believe in conditional immortality teach that unbelievers will not suffer conscious eternal separation from God since they have not obtained immortality from Christ. Instead, unbelievers will be annihilated (perhaps after a short period of suffering). This view is appealing to many who have trouble with the concept of eternal damnation, but it flies in the face of many clear passages which teach that an immortal existence, for better of worse, will belong to all mankind, not just the saved. Some scriptures to consider in this regard, besides John the Baptist's words in Matthew 3:12 are: Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Matt. 9:43-48; Matt. 18:6-9; John 5:28-29; Matt. 13:41-42; Matt. 18:34-35; Matt. 25:30; Matt. 25:41-48; Luke 16:23-25; John 3:36; Rom. 6:20-23; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; Heb. 10:28-31; 2 Peter 2:9; Jude 6-7; Jude 12-13; Rev. 14:9-11; Rev. 19:3; Rev. 20:10-15.
Matthew 3:16 Why does the Holy Spirit appear as a dove?
One common association made between this verse and the OT is with the spirit hovering over the water at the first creation. In this case the hovering dove announces the start of a new creation. Another possible reference to the creation in Genesis 1 is God's voice saying he is pleased with Jesus (similar to “God saw it was good.”) But one scholar has counted fifteen other possible explanations for why the Spirit appears at this time, especially as a dove. Here are some of them:
It completes the Trinity. Rabbis taught that the Spirit of God would only become active again on earth when the Messiah came.
Properties of the dove which may have been intended to apply to the Holy Spirit (and become imparted to Christ) are graciousness, gentleness, purity.
The dove (or any bird) is appropriate because it can bridge the gap between heaven and earth.
Others feel that the dove with the olive branch indicates God's peace with mankind. J.B.Phillips -- violence (lit. “ripped open” in Mark's account) and peace are found together.
Rabbis used the dove as a frequent symbol for Israel herself (also in Hosea). Here Jesus becomes the unique representative of the new Israel. Similar wording between Matthew 3:13 and 3:5 (Even more obvious in Mark's account) shows this intended identification of Jesus with the sinful nation. This is probably the explanation of the difficult phrase “fulfill all righteousness.”
The dove flying over the flood waters in Genesis symbolizes the end of one age and the start of another one. Recall that Peter compares baptism with the ark which saved Noah and his family.
As in the crossing of the Jordan in OT times, Christ leads the way for us in death and resurrection, represented by his own baptism. There is an allusion to the Servant Songs in Isaiah 42:1-- “Behold my servant upon whom I have put my Spirit” and Isaiah 43-- “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you.” This points to Christ's role as one who suffers on our behalf. Genesis 22:2 -- “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love.” Abraham was told to sacrifice his son.
Isaiah 11:1-2 has the Spirit resting dove-like on a Davidic figure. There are many other messianic references in this passage. Verse 17 is an allusion to Psalm 2:7, a coronation hymn referring to the Messiah, in which God calls David his son. Christ is being officially commissioned for his public ministry at this point.
Matthew 5:21-25 Is Jesus saying here that when you sin against another person, it cannot be forgiven unless you confess to both that person and to God?
These particular verses may have to do more with practical consequences of disagreements with a brother (including the hindering of your relationship with God, as do poor relations with your wife—taught elsewhere) and the general idea that “murder” has a broader definition than popularly believed. It doesn't deal with confessing an unknown sin against a person of which he is unaware, but one which is already causing bad relations between you and a fellow believer.
There are two other things to keep in mind when reading these verses: (1) The teachings combine principles applicable to temporal punishment here on earth (“You will be liable to the council”) and eternal punishments (“You will be liable to the hell of fire”). (2) The punishments mentioned are not sure to happen, but you will be liable to receive them.
Matthew 5:31-32 Why does Jesus mention the certificate? Is he implying that you shouldn’t just walk out? And why does the women commit adultery if the man is the only one at fault?
It was necessary for the man to write up a divorce certificate and present it to his wife as the bare minimum before sending her out of the house. That action protected her so that she would be free to remarry. However, many men took advantage of this provision to rid themselves of their wives at the slightest pretext. Therefore Jesus says in Matthew 19:1-12 that the provision was given by Moses because of the hardness of people's hearts. God's ideal is that no divorce at all should take place. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus points out the unfortunate consequences of divorce for both men and women.
It is assumed from the start that the man is at fault since no women could initiate divorce proceedings. But the divorced women is dragged into the problem also. This could occur in three possible ways:
1. The action of the man exposes the woman to the danger of adultery, either because she remarries (see the Mark 10:12 parallel) or becomes a prostitute to support herself after being abandoned.
2. The act of divorce itself causes her to become exposed to adultery metaphorically through the man breaking the commitment to the institution of marriage, and especially if he remarries.
3. When the man divorces the woman she could become branded as an adulteress in people's eyes.
Here are some other principles to keep in mind when considering this passage:
1. Remember that this teaching is found in the Sermon on the Mount and thus is part of “the absolute ethic of the kingdom” in which almost impossibly high standards are described so as to discourage believers from settling for a lower degree of holiness in their own lives.
2. Parallels found elsewhere in the gospels (Matthew 19:8-9 and Luke 16:18) do not contain this problem clause, indicating that Jesus' teachings on divorce may not be so absolute in practice. These parallel scriptures also add an exception to the prohibition against divorce in the case of unchastity.
3. The highest law of Christ is compassion. Remarriage after divorce is not the unforgivable sin.
4. The passive voice in this passage may indicate that the woman is being exposed to adultery, not committing it herself.
Matthew 5:33-37 This seems to say that we should never to make a vow of any kind. What about marriage? It is based upon a vow.
Jesus made this statement to counter the popular forms of swearing an oath, all of which involved invoking something or someone you have no control over. A Christian should so be known for honesty that only a simple statement is enough. Jehovah Witnesses take this to mean that we shouldn't even swear to tell the truth in a court of law.
Matthew 7:1 Years of study could go into what Jesus is talking about. In “don’t judge……” is he really saying that all judgment is bad, or for people to have some humility before they start casting stones at others?
Going on to verses 3-5, you can see that some discernment is needed. Jesus says elsewhere that if we judge, we should judge rightly. We should do it humbly by realizing that (1) as human beings, we don't have all the facts of any given situation, and (2) we have faults also that sometimes cloud our judgment. If we recognize what those faults are in ourselves, we will be able to address other people's faults more objectively. The purpose of rightly judging is to take the speck out of their eyes, not to humiliate them or condemn them.
Matthew 7:6 Are there really people that we should not preach to?
First look at the physical picture and its background
This saying takes a chiastic form:
dogs
swine
trample
maul
NICNT: The imagery may come from Exodus 22:31 where unclean food was thrown to the dogs and only the priest's family could eat of consecrated food.
Hendricksen: There is the suggestion that pigs would think the pearls are acorns and angrily trample on them when they find they are inedible.
Dogs are sometimes metaphors for wicked people who attack God's anointed – Psalm 22:16
“Holy” may be a mistranslation from Aramaic for “gold.” This would fit in with Proverbs 11:22 – a beautiful woman without discretion is like a gold ring in a swine's snout.”
Dogs and swine were terms used by Jews for Gentiles. The meaning was later transferred to those outside the Christian community.
AB: This could be a prohibition against preaching to Gentiles. See Philippians 3:2, Matthew 10:5 and Revelation 22:15, but,
NICNT: There is an anti-gentile feeling in Matthew 15:24, but the story ends with the dogs being fed and inclusion of Gentiles seen in 28:19.
NAC: “Jesus obviously is obviously not telling his followers not to preach to certain kinds of people, but he does recognize that after sustained rejection and reproach, it is appropriate to move on to others [as Paul did].” “There is a form of evangelism that urges Christians to use every opportunity to share the gospel.” This may be insensitive and turn people away from Christ.
Hendricksen: “A moment arrives when constant resistance to the gracious invitation must be punished by the departure of the messengers of good tidings.”
NICNT: “While one should not prejudice who may receive one's message, neither should one try to force it on those who show no inclination to accept it.”
Look at the example of Jesus who refused to answer any of Herod Antipas' questions (Luke 23:9).
Didache 9:5: “Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, 'Do not give what is holy to the dogs.'”
NCBC: Liturgical form used before Catholic communion: “Holy things to the holy.”
NICNT: The setting may be within the church rather than one of evangelism. Welcome people but not for disputes. Devil's advocates in the church, etc. “There may be times and situations when a responsible assessment of the likely response requires the disciple's instinctive generosity to be limited, so that holy things are not brought into contempt.”
NCBC: This saying may be a corrective to the “do not judge” teaching which precedes it.
CS Lewis Letters: “Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil. Satan was an angel. I wonder have any of us taken seriously enough the prohibition of casting pearls before swine? This is the point of comment after the Parable of the Unjust Steward. We are denied many graces that we ask for, etc.”
Matthew 10:5-6 Don't these verses indicate that Jesus' ministry was to go to the Northern tribes of Israel only, and not the Southern tribes?
The basic mistake with this view (and I consulted over 10 commentaries and Bible dictionaries on the Matthew passage to see if I might be wrong) is in assuming that Israel always means the Northern Kingdom and Judah means the Southern Kingdom. That sort of strict nomenclature was not even adhered to during the Divided Kingdom Era. And certainly, beginning with the Exile and continuing through to New Testament times, Israel(ite), Judah (Judean, Jew), Zion, etc. were terms used interchangeably to apply to all sons and daughters of Jacob.
I will give just two examples of New Testament usage since that is the context of Jesus' words. Hebrews 8:8 quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and talks about a covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. But this same covenant becomes one with the House of Israel in 8:10, and then in 10:16 the same quote is shortened to "them" in the context of Temple worship taking place in Judea. The only way to avoid an obvious discrepancy here is to consider that all three references to the Jeremiah passage refer to the whole Jewish people.
Another case where "House of Israel" appears in the New Testament is during Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentacost. He addresses his audience as "men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem." Then he calls them "fellow Israelites" in 2:29 and "the entire house of Israel" in 2:36.
Some feel that only Israel, and not Judah, was divorced by God in Isaiah 50. However, nowhere in that chapter does it mention that the Northern Kingdom is being exclusively addressed. In fact, both the previous chapter and the following one seem to be addressed primarily to the Southern Kingdom or to all Jews: see 49:6 "tribes of Judah" in poetic parallelism to "survivors of Israel" and the references to Zion (the mount of Jerusalem in Judea) in Isaiah 49:15; 51:3,11,16.Yes, Jesus did spend much of his ministry in Galilee, but there was also a Perean ministry as well as forays into Gentile territory where he did miracles. The reason for staying mainly in the northern areas has usually been described as a practical one. If he had spent too much time close to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, opposition from that quarter or from Roman authorities would have clamped down on his ministry way before his three years were up. This concern is especially seen in Mark's Gospel where Jesus warns people several times not to spread the word of his miraculous deeds.
The Matthew 10:5-6 passage basically means that Jesus wants his followers to first preach to his fellow Jews rather than the Gentiles. This same thought re-appears in Matthew 15:24, where Jesus heals the Canaanite woman's daughter. Of course, in the final verses of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus broadens the scope of spreading the Gospel to include all nations.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments