Matthew 10:34-35 How do you resolve the apparent contradiction in the Bible between Jesus' statement in Matthew 10:34-35 (“I came not to bring peace but a sword.”) and Luke 1:79, 2:14, and 2:29 where the coming of Christ is associated with peace?
It all boils down to the definition of “peace.” It is easier to define negatively as the absence of ----strife, conflict, war, worry, etc. The expression “uneasy peace” may apply to all of these since it can disappear as circumstances change.
I consulted three word study books to obtain the following:
1. Peace (shalom) was the standard Jewish greeting in Christ's time and appears 250 times in the OT. “The group shalom represents one of the most prominent theological concepts in the OT.” One meaning expresses relations between people or groups. There is shalom when there is no conflict between them. Therefore the word may be translated as “treaty.”
2. Another secular meaning of shalom designates physical well being or prosperity.
3. A third underlying meaning is of wholeness or completion or the feeling of being at ease.
4. The most theologically charged meaning of shalom is in relation to peace between God and man. So it is closely related to the concepts of salvation and justification. All of this is summarized in the familiar blessing found in Numbers 6:24-26 where shalom ends the blessing and summarizes all that goes before it.
Paul uses the same greeting in almost all of his letters: the Greek word eirene (peace) is usually coupled with “grace.” This word occurs in every NT book except I John. In these various contexts it sometimes takes on the secular Greek meanings of harmony between nations, internal order and the sense of rest and contentment. But it also continues the Jewish idea of shalom: harmony between man and God, and completion. “Hence the word can describe both the content and the goal of all Christian preaching, the message itself being called 'the gospel of peace.'” See Ephesians 2:17, 6:15.
Let's get back to the question of a biblical contradiction: The solution is really summed up in John 14:27 (“Peace I give you, not as the world gives.”) Thus, in the Matthew 10 reference, meaning #1 is in mind. By contrast, the Luke references refer to meaning #4. Jesus' coming had the short term effect of conflict between people (#1) because of their varying responses to his word, but the ultimate purpose of his coming was everlasting peace (#4).
Matthew 12:36-37 Does this passage mean that even believers will have to undergo the Last Judgment?
As with any aspect of eschatology, we are not privy to all of the details and do not need to be. But, below are other scriptures I found that appear to deal with the Last Judgment and believers' part in it. If you digest them all, they seem to give a consistent picture in which everyone, believers or not, will appear before the Judgment Throne. However, believers have no need to fear the final outcome of the trial, unlike unbelievers. There will be one type of trial scene that all will undergo, but the final verdict will be quite different for each group. However, even for the believers it may be an unpleasant experience to go through and some will escape, but only as through fire. Christian teachers will be subjected to more scrutiny at this time than other believers.
Matthew 25 parables of judgment
John 5:24-29
Acts 17:31
Romans 2:5-16
Romans 5:9
Romans 14:10-12
Romans 20:11-15
I Corinthians 1:8
I Corinthians5:5
II Corinthians 5:10
Philippians 1:10
Philippians 3:11-12
I Thessalonians 5:23
Hebrews 4:13
Hebrews 9:27-28
Hebrews 10:30
James 2:12
James 3:1
I Peter4:17-18
I John 2:28
I John 4:17
Jude 14-15
Revelation 11:18
Matthew 13 This chapter contains many teachings regarding the Kingdom, but there is no real definition of whether it is spiritual or earthly, or when it starts (or started). Help me understand this.
This is indeed a controversial subject, but my own understanding is that the kingdom is spiritual and does not meet the world's definition of that word. The main questions are when it began and will end, and where it is now and/or will be.
As to its beginning point, I consulted an Analytical Concordance and could not find any specific reference in the Bible to the kingdom being initiated on the Day of Pentecost. I then read the extensive articles on “Kingdom” in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Dictionary of the Later New Testament, and New Bible Dictionary (all by different evangelical authors). There wasn't a single mention of the Day of Pentecost or the beginning of the church age as being the start of the Kingdom, and actually very little that equated the Church in any way with the Kingdom. However, these sources were all in agreement on two points: the Kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus' earthly ministry and it will be finally realized with the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. In between these times, all believers live in both the presence and promise of the Kingdom (“now, but not yet,” as many commentators put it). Thus, it is still pertinent for us to pray for His kingdom to come.
Some specific NT passages to consider in regard to Jesus' inauguration of the Kingdom while he was still on earth:
1. “the kingdom of God is among you.” Luke 17:20-21
2. The vision of Christ's birth and flight to Egypt is followed by “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ,” followed by the picture of Satan being thrown down at Christ's crucifixion. Revelation 12:1-12 (Granted that there are other valid interpretations of this chapter.)
Also, consider the verb tense in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not from this world.” By the way, the view of both the evangelical Leon Morris (The Gospel According to John) and the Catholic commentator Raymond Brown (Death of the Messiah, p. 750) is that the preposition ek in this verse is best translated as “from” rather than “of.” This is also the position of NRSV. Thus, the statement doesn't say anything about where the kingdom is located, but only about its origin (from heaven). This is confirmed by the use of kosmos (worldly spiritual realm) for “world” rather than ge (physical earth) in this passage.
Passages dealing with the Kingdom as a future reality are more numerous:
1. It is pictured as a future “inheritance” in I Corinthians 6:9, I Corinthians 15:50, Galatians 5:21, Ephesians 5:5, James 2:5, Revelation 21:7.
2. “from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Luke 22:16-18
3. The apostles will “eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Luke 22:29-30
4. Paul encouraged disciples to continue in the faith: “It is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God.”
5. “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom.” II Timothy 4:1
6. “The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and save me for his heavenly kingdom.” II Timothy 4:18
7. “We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.” This is in the context of the destruction of the present heaven and earth and God's judgment. Hebrews 12:28
8. “For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.” II Peter 1:11
Matthew 16:13-19 How can I reply to my Catholic friends who point to this passage to justify the
inerrancy of the Pope?
Much of our uncertainty regarding this verse stems from the fact that we were not there when Jesus
spoke these words and don't know who or what he may have been pointing to at the time.
1. For example, some commentators feel that he was pointing to a known rock located at Caesarea
Phillippi from which a spring of water issues that was believed to come from the depths of Hades. (see
Ray Vander Laan's wonderful series of videos).
2. Jesus may have been pointing to Himself as the rock so that, for example, Peter was only a petros
(pebble) while Christ was a petra (boulder).
3. He may have been pointing to Peter and referring to him. In Aramaic, Cephas equals both Peter
and rock.
4. He may have been addressing Peter but referring instead to Peter's confession of faith.
Even if explanation #3 is true:
1. It is only found in one of the Gospel account whereas important teachings are repeated in the Bible.
2. There is no firm historical evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
3. It says nothing whatsoever about his successors.
4. The associated binding and loosing statements in verse 19 are applied elsewhere to all the
apostles and, by extension, to any group of Christians (see Matthew 18:15-20).
4. This implies no sort of special inerrancy to Peter or his successors. Just look at the example
of Peter in a later episode in which Jesus actually calls him “Satan.” The so-called inerrancy of
the popes was only first proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870 and applied only to
pronouncements he might make under certain restricted conditions.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments