DID
YOU KNOW?
Page 2
This page is a new addition and will be updated regularly. We encourage input from our visitors on any topic addressed here, as well a suggestions for future topics.
________________
CONTENTS:
About John's Question in Matthew 11:3
What Yahshua Meant in Luke 23:43
When Yahshua Preached to the Spirits in Prison
What the Virgin is in I Cor. 7:36-38
Where was the Sermon on the Mount Given?
About John's Question in Matthew 11:3
In Matthew 11:3 we find John the Baptist sending two of his disciples to Yahshua with a very perplexing question:
"Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?"
This question is truly perplexing because we know from John 1:26-36 that John knew exactly who Yahshua was, even to the extent of making the statement, "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." If John understood so much about Yahshua, why would he ask a question that seemed to indicate such doubt about Yahshua's true identity and position as Messiah?
The answer to this question lies in the interesting duality of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies: in fact, these prophecies can be divided into two apparently opposing and almost contradictory types. The first type generally speaks of the Messiah as a meek and lamblike atoner, despised and mistreated by his peers. This gentle Messiah is represented in such passages as Ps. 22; Isa. 42:1-4; Isa. 53; Jer. 11:19; etc.
The second type of Messianic prophecy shows the Messiah as a powerful conqueror who comes in vengeance and judgement. Passages such as Psa. 2; Isa. 11:4; Isa. 63:1-6; and Mal. 3:1-5 present this type of Messianic figure. John the Baptist, along with the rest of the nation of Israel, would have been familiar with both of these types of Messianic prophecies.
This dualism in Messianic prophecy is the key to the apparent confusion behind John's question. John, knowing that Yahshua was the Son of God and "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world", understood that Yahshua was the fulfillment of the prophecies portraying the Messiah as meek and gentle. John clearly understood that Yahshua truly was God's anointed Saviour. John's question simply had to do with how prophecy was to be fulfilled: John wanted to know if Yahshua was to fulfill both types of prophecies, or was He only there to fulfill the ones concerning the meek Messiah, while someone else yet to appear was to fulfill the ones concerning the powerful Messiah.
Given the unforeseeable nature of the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy - that Yahshua was to fulfill the "meek Messiah" prophecies, then die a physical death, only to be resurrected and then wait more than 2,000 years to return to fulfill the second type of prophecy - we can see that John's question is not only understandable, it is also completely logical and reasonable. John asked this question not out of doubt, but out of a sincere desire to understand Messianic prophecy and how that prophecy was to be fulfilled.
Now, given the validity of John's question, what was Yahshua's response?
"Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me." (Matt. 11:4-6)
Though there are several prophecies Yahshua may be referring to here, two readily present themselves and both provide the same powerful response to John's question. The first is Isaiah 29:18-21 - "And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase their joy in Yahweh, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." Here is a prophecy that not only refers to the blind, deaf, and poor which Yahshua spoke of, it also clearly links the blessings upon these people with the concepts of judgment and vengeance. By extension, it identifies the Blesser with the Judge and Avenger.
The second passage Yahshua may be referring to is Isaiah 35:3-6: "Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of fearful heart, 'Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with recompense; He will come and save you.' Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing..." Again we clearly see the concept of blessings to the downtrodden directly linked to the concepts of vengeance and recompense, which therefore shows that the one who heals these people is the same one coming with vengeance and recompense.
Obviously, what Yahshua wished John to understand that it was possible for Him to fulfill both types of prophecies. He wanted John to know that since He had fulfilled the first type, He was also going to fulfill the second. Finally, he wanted John to be strong and unafraid and not stumble in his faith in Yahshua by doubting His ability to perform these things. How wonderful that our Lord both strengthened and encouraged John with His answer and at the same time explained to both John and us a pivotal fact of Messianic prophecy and its fulfillment.
We find two very important messages contained in Matt. 11:2-6. The first is that it is right and proper to examine Scripture and ask questions about any part of it that we do not understand. The second is Yahshua our Saviour is able to fulfill all things spoken of Him, everything in its proper season. Let us continue to examine, question, and rejoice as we wait for the soon coming fulfillment of all these things.
About the Apostle Paul
"Paul hated women." "I believe the New Testament, but I take Paul's writings with a grain of salt." "Paul was not a true apostle." "Paul's writings are more important to the New Testament church than Yahshua's teachings." "Paul had a bad personality, was hard to get along with, and wrote in a way that's too hard to understand."
These are some of the comments that may be heard about the apostle Paul in Bible studies, during religious debates, and in casual conversation among people during church gatherings. Paul seems to bring out one of two strong emotions in people as they discuss him: either a hearty dislike and distrust, or such a regard for him that it attempts to rank him in importance above the Messiah Himself. There are so many misconceptions concerning Paul, yet Scripture yields up the truth about him and his teachings to anyone who is willing to search for that truth.
Paul's personal background is easy to find: He was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6); of the most strict sect of the Pharisees (Acts 26:5); of the stock of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, and an Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil. 3:5). Concerning his religion, we know that he persecuted the New Testament church, considered himself blameless concerning the law (Phil 3:6), and became a servant of Yahshua after his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-20). Apparently, after his conversion he traveled to Arabia (Gal. 1:17) and received visions and revelations from Yahshua (II Cor. 12:1-4).
Was Paul a true apostle? According to his own testimony and that of others, he was. He actually saw Yahshua after His resurrection (I Cor. 15:8), which was required for apostleship. Paul repeatedly referred to himself as an apostle, though at times claiming to be the least of the apostles, born out of due time, and not meet to be called an apostle (I Cor. 15:9), and at other times making it clear that he was as much an apostle as any others, having been shown approved by patience, signs, wonders, and mighty deeds (II Cor. 11:5 and 12:11-12). Finally, Luke the physician refers to Paul as an apostle in Acts 14:14 - compelling evidence that Paul truly was one of Yahshua's apostles.
Paul's writings make up a large part of the New Testament, and serve as the basis for doctrine in many Christian churches. Are his writings truly to be considered as Scripture? Peter's statement regarding this is clear enough: "...even as our beloved brother Paul...hath written unto you...in all his epistles...in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned...wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures..." (II Peter 3:15-16).
Since Peter clearly considered Paul's writings to be Scripture, this should be sufficient testimony to convince any doubter to accept them as such, and if Paul's writing truly are Scripture, they must be accepted as a whole: they are not to be picked through and parts discarded simply because they are hard to understand or because we don't want to accept what they appear to say. Peter himself tells us that Paul's writings are hard to be understood. The reason for this is that Paul addressed complicated issues and questions brought up by individual churches. In most cases we do not have the questions or issues which were put to him: we have only his answers concerning these things. This makes his answers difficult to understand at times, but with honest effort they can be understood. No matter what, we cannot discard any of Paul's hard writings for any reason, any more than we can discard any other parts of Scripture.
With this stated, it must be pointed out that nowhere in the New Testament do we see any reference to Paul's teachings being more important than Yahshua's. Paul's admonition in I Cor. 11:1 - "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of the Christ", defines the nature of his work and writings: they were built on those things first given by Yahshua. Paul held himself up as an example, not of how to lead, but how to follow. I Cor. 15:3 tells us that he delivered to others those things which he had earlier received. He was not the author of New Testament doctrine and never claimed to be: Paul only transmitted to others what Yahshua had given him. If there is any doctrinal point in question where it seems at first glance that Paul contradicts Yahshua's teachings, then the burden is on us to bring our understanding of Paul's teachings into line with the rest of Scripture and Yahshua's teachings, not the other way around. Our guiding principle for gaining this understanding is that Paul cannot contradict either himself or the rest of the Bible.
For example, one of the most common misconceptions about Paul was that he disliked women and discriminated against them within the church. Nothing could be more wrong. The clearest statement Paul makes on this subject is Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in the Christ Yahshua." This statement is an absolute which we can use to guide us in evaluating other, less clear, statements about women.
One such statement is I Cor. 14:34-35. This appears to forbid women to even speak or actively learn anything during assembly, yet we cannot accept this interpretation of a passage written by the same man who wrote Gal. 3:28, for then he would clearly be contradicting himself by making a vast difference between women and men during worship. The solution for this problem is the simple addition of quotation marks at the beginning of v. 34 and the end of v. 35. What Paul is doing here is quoting back to the Corinthians something that they had obviously been saying among themselves, and to him. Paul's response? Verse 36: "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?" Rather than trying to silence women, Paul is rebuking these people for accepting such a false teaching and claiming that is was sanctioned by God.
Furthermore, in I Cor. 11, a passage usually interpreted as placing limitations on women in the church, we find in verse 5 a clear reference to women praying and prophesying during assembly. If this verse referred to private, personal prayer, then Paul would have no reason to even address the subject in this fashion. Also, the very act of prophesying implies a public action. We have here instruction for the proper way for women to present themselves during public assembly while carrying out these functions - functions requiring speech. We must accept the above interpretation of I Cor. 14, or else we would have Paul in complete contradiction of himself - an absolutely unacceptable situation.
Paul's acceptance of women and approval of their participation in Yahshua's ministry is clear: In Romans 26:1 he refers to Phebe as a deacon of the church at Cenchrea. In verse 7 he speaks of Junia - obviously a woman - as being "of note among the apostles, who (was) in Christ before me." This opens up the possibility of there being female apostles. Also, he tacitly approves of women as teachers of Scripture, for Acts 18:26 tells us that Priscilla participated in Apollos' instruction in "the way of God", and then in Rom. 16:3 & 4, Paul calls her a "helper in the Christ Yahshua" and speaks of a church in her home. If Priscilla's teaching had been against the accepted practice in the church at that time, Paul would never have endorsed her in this way.
Obviously Paul's attitude towards women is consistent with Yahshua's attitude towards them during His ministry, and with our Father's attitude also - "God is no respecter of persons" (See II Chron. 19:7 & Acts 10:34). A careful examination of any passage concerning women written by Paul will reveal this.
As to Paul's unlovable personality and poor attitude in general, we have only to look at his expressions of love and willing service to the many churches he wrote to. He professes love not only for the converted Gentiles to whom his ministry was directed, but also for the still unconverted house of Israel (Rom. 10:1). We see evidence of his tact in the speech he gave on Mars hill in Acts 17:22-31. He shows true compassion, humor, and negotiating skills in Philemon. And despite his troubles with Mark in Acts 15:37-40, he exhibits forgiveness and appreciation for him in II Tim. 4:11. Finally, in II Tim. 4:6-18, we see the vulnerability and resolve of a man who knows that his death is near. All of these things point to a likable, driven man who is dedicated to God's service and to God's people.
Finally, to those who insist that Paul contradicts Yahshua, that he is a tare sown amongst Yahshua's people, an apostate, and that he and his writings must be rejected - remember this: To reject Paul is also to reject Peter, who as shown above not only endorses Paul himself but refers to his writings as Scripture; and also to reject Luke, who authored Acts, reported Paul's conversion, referred to him as an apostle, and detailed his travels with Paul during his ministry throughout the second half of Acts. If Peter and Luke lied or were deceived about Paul, then their writings are just as "suspect" as Paul's - a conclusion which results in losing over 1/2 of the New Testament epistles. Beware the error of rejecting not one but three apostles, particularly when the fault lies not in the apostles but in your own inability to reject apparent contradiction and search for truth
Paul was an ordinary man doing a difficult job. In his ministry to a newly formed church, he addressed complex subjects. He had his flaws, as we all do, but any flaws were outweighed by his many excellent qualities. Because of misconceptions and laziness on the part of many Bible students, Paul has often fallen victim to bias and misunderstanding. Perhaps now we can see him more clearly as he was presented in Scripture: a common man who performed an uncommon service to the fledgling church of his time, and to the God who called him to that service.
How Enoch Was Translated
In Genesis 5:21-24 we find a brief description of the life of Enoch, who was Methuselah's father and Noah's great-grandfather. Twice it tells us that Enoch "walked with God" - a phrase that can be taken figuratively or literally. Figuratively, it simply means that Enoch lived his life according to God's rules and conducted himself in a way pleasing to Yahweh. If taken literally, it would mean that Enoch was acceptable enough to God that he actually spent time with Him and had a relationship with Him similar to that of Adam and Eve's before their sin, a relationship with Him similar to that of Noah's, Abraham's, and Moses'. Either way it is interpreted, we know that Enoch was completely in Yahweh's good graces.
In the midst of this sketchy account of the man, verse 24 makes a somewhat startling statement: "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." Does this mean, as many think it does, that Enoch was changed and taken to heaven to live with God? Is this passage simply a euphemism for Enoch's death? Does it mean that he never died at all? Or can another meaning for this passage be found?
Though this might seem at first glance to be a complicated question, the answer is found very simply. We can first look to Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." An examination of the word "translated" will tell us this: "from 3326 and 5087 - literally, to transport; to exchange; to change sides" (Strong's Concordance). The root words mean literally "to place amid". This word is also used in Acts 7:16 and Gal. 1:6 and is translated respectively "carried over" and "removed". So we see now the possibility that Enoch was simply removed from one place to another, rather than changed or caught up to heaven. Are there other Scriptures that support this idea?
Yes. We know that Enoch could not have been taken to heaven, because Yahshua Himself tells us that "...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13). Acts 2:34 tells us that even David has not ascended, and Proverbs 30:4 asks, "Who hath ascended up into heaven...what is His name, and what is His son's name?" These Scriptures tell us that no one but Yahshua has ascended up unto the heaven and the Father, so Enoch was not taken up to heaven.
Also, it is clear from Heb. 11 that Gen. 5:24 does not speak of Enoch's death because Hebrews says that he was translated, or moved, in order that he should not see death. Based on this, some may claim that Enoch never saw death - that he either changed directly from a physical into a spirit being, or in the most extreme cases, that he never physically died and is still with us today. Neither of these claims can be true because they contradict other Scriptures. Ezekiel 18:4 & 20 tell us, "...the soul that sinneth, it shall die." This is an absolute. Romans 3:23 tells us that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God": taken with Eze., this means that all people die, period. With these two Scriptures alone we can prove that Enoch did physically die. Even the Son of God Himself died, and Enoch could not have escaped what the Son of God did not.
So what happened when Enoch was translated? The clearest answer is that he was simply removed from one place to another in order to save his physical life. The words "and was not found" may imply that Enoch was being searched for by someone who wished to kill him. We know from Jude 14 that Enoch was a prophet, and from the context of Enoch's time - after Adam and Eve's sin and nearing the time of the Flood - it is easy to infer that God's prophets were not greatly loved by the sinful people of that time. It seems that because Enoch pleased God and was such a great example of faith, as Heb. 11 relates, Yahweh chose to remove him from some deadly danger and relocate him to a place of safety.
If this interpretation of Enoch's translation is true, it resolves the contradictions found in other interpretations and brings order back to our understanding of Scripture. This understanding of the events concerning Enoch can be taken as an encouragement to us now, we who are surrounded by a dangerous and unGodly world. If we will only "walk with God" now, always seeking to please Him by doing His will, then no matter what the circumstance, we can trust in our Father's protection in the days to come.
What Yahshua meant in Luke 23:43
"Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
This statement from Luke 23:43 is one of the most misunderstood statements in the New Testament. As rendered above, this passage - carried through to its logical conclusion - could mean that a common criminal preceded Yahshua into paradise. It would certainly mean that Yahshua had contradicted other statements He made elsewhere in the Gospels, making Him an untrustworthy liar. However, a simple examination of this subject will dispose of this horrible possibility.
The scenario leading up to this statement is this: "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, 'If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us.' But the other answering rebuked him, saying, 'Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we received the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.' And he said unto Yahshua, 'Lord, remember me when Thou comest into thy kingdom.'" Yahshua's reply is commonly rendered as, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
As rendered above, we have two choices of interpretation. One is that on the very day that Yahshua spoke this, the malefactor would be in paradise with Yahshua. This is a direct contradiction of Matthew 12:40 - "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" Yahshua could not be both in paradise and in the grave at the same time, so either He truly is contradicting Himself - which is impossible - or else His statement is being misinterpreted.
The other interpretation is just as impossible: if Matt. 12:40 is true and Yahshua had also promised the malefactor that he would be in paradise on the very day of His promise, then as Yahshua lay in the grave for three days and three nights, the malefactor was in paradise. An unthinkable concept - that a common criminal would enter into paradise before the Son of God.
We have here a grave problem - contradiction and impossibility on one hand and the unthinkable on the other hand. However, the solution to this lies within our reach. It is a reasonable and non-contradictory solution, absolutely preferable to its alternative. The solution lies in the nature of the Greek in which the New Testament was written and the style of writing at that time. It is well known that the original Greek texts of the New Testament contain no punctuation or capitalization (as well as no paragraphs or chapter breaks). All of these were added later by translators as they tried to organize the New Testament writings, and all of them were added arbitrarily, based on the judgment of the translators. In this case, they made an error in judgment.
In the case of Luke 23:43, if we move the comma and remove one capital letter from Yahshua's statement, suddenly the true meaning becomes clear: "Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with Me in paradise." Now we see what Yahshua meant: He was making a promise to this man that he would later enter into paradise and be with Him. This responds directly to the man's request: "Remember me when You come into (or "in" - Bullinger's Companion Bible) your kingdom." Especially if we understand this to be a reference to Yahshua's second coming, we see that this was a promise meant to be fulfilled after Yahshua's resurrection, not before. Yahshua has not come in His kingdom - otherwise we would not be praying, "Thy kingdom come", and Rev. 12:10 - clearly a future prophecy - would not say, "...now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ...", so this promise has not yet been fulfilled.
This revised rendering of Luke 23:43 resolves the contradiction inherent in the original, arbitrary rendering of the early New Testament translators without doing violence to the text itself. It brings this passage into agreement with Yahshua's other statements and the statements of the Gospel writers concerning the three days and three nights of His entombment. Above all, shows us that His mercy and promises are true; the mercy offered freely to any who seek it at any time, and the promises surely to be fulfilled at His coming. Even so, come Lord Yahshua!
When Yahshua Preached to the Spirits in Prison
In I Peter 3:19 we read, "By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison." From this one verse, taken by itself and out of context, a doctrine has sprung up that states that Yahshua spent the three days and nights in "hell" after His death, arguing with the devil or preaching to the lost souls there. While this may seem ridiculous at first glance, many people subscribe to this belief, so it must be addressed and corrected in order to perhaps guide them back to Scriptural truth.
The error of this doctrine is caused by taking this verse out of context and allowing it to stand alone, subject to any interpretation. If we restore the context and examine related Scriptures, the truth immediately becomes clear.
Verses 18-20: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by Which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing..."
This verse has nothing to do with the time during Yahshua's death: we know that Yahshua lay in the tomb for three days and three nights, completely dead and unable to engage in any activity, whether it be preaching or anything else. Rather, this verse deals with the Spirit, God's holy Spirit which quickened Yahshua, restoring Him to life after His death. It was by this same Spirit, verse 19 says, that He preached to the "spirits in prison" in Noah's time, those who were disobedient during the time before the completion of the ark.
Who were these spirits? Strong's tells us that "spirits" means: "a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul..." By this definition, these "spirits" were simply the sinful people of Noah's time. And their prison? Simply their bondage to sin. Romans 6:16 instructs us, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants (slaves) to obey, his servants (slaves) ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"; Peter tells us, "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants (slaves) of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage" (II Peter 19); and Yahshua Himself testifies, "...Verily, verily, I say unto you, 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (slave) of sin." During the time before the Flood, the inhabitants of the earth were imprisoned in their sins and destined for destruction. Yahshua as Yahweh used His Spirit to preach to these imprisoned souls, in an attempt to save them from that destruction.
Did Yahshua Himself do this preaching? No, II Peter 2:5 tells us that "Noah...(was) a preacher of righteousness..." As a such a preacher, Noah was certainly guided by the God's Spirit, and he would have been a primary instrument for speaking Yahweh's truth to the people of his time. We also know from Jude 14 that Enoch was a prophet of Yahweh, as others from his lineage may have been. It appears that Enos, Cainan, Mahaleleel, Jared, Lamech, and Methuselah were all contemporary with Noah and alive before the Flood: some or all of them could have been Yahweh's preachers or prophets. This line of reasoning gives an alternate slant to Genesis 6:3, where Yahweh says, "...My Spirit shall not always strive with man..." This could be a reference to His Spirit striving, through His prophets and preachers, to reach the people of that time, and His decision to abandon that struggle.
Now we can see clearly that I Peter 3:19 must be read as part of the longer passage which includes verses 18 and 20. It tells us that it was by the holy Spirit that Yahshua preached to the sinful people of Noah's time in an attempt to save them from their sins, and it was by that same Spirit that He was quickened, or given life, upon His resurrection, saving us now from those same sins. So we see Yahshua, not uselessly preaching to "spirits in hell", but utilizing His Spirit in every way possible to intervene for us, the creation of His hands, in order to offer us His salvation. This passage truly is proof of His everlasting mercy and love for us, and it shows the consistency of His actions towards us through time. His mercy truly does endure forever!
What the Virgin is in I Cor. 7:36-38
"But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better."
This passage has caused countless students of the Bible much confusion. Even well-known commentaries stumble over this passage, commonly interpreting it in a way that seems to imply a very twisted view of the relationship between a believing man and either his fiancé or his virgin daughter, depending on which commentary one reads. A closer examination of the context and wording of this passage will clarify the subject and yield a better interpretation.
If we look at verse 32-34, we see Paul dealing with the subject of marriage, plainly telling us that service to our Lord is much easier for the unmarried man or woman, for they have only to think of pleasing God and not of pleasing their spouses. Paul expresses his wish that all might be able to serve God without distraction, even the distraction of marriage. However, in verse 36, he begins to address the likelihood that a person may begin to act in an uncomely fashion and, if he cannot control himself, would do better by getting married. The reference is to acting uncomely towards "his virgin". What does this mean?
In Strong's Concordance, the word simply means "a maiden". Strong's, Bullinger's Companion Bible, and countless other Bible commentaries suggest that this refers to a virgin daughter. In reading the rest of this passage, this rendering becomes unacceptable as it implies that a believing man is acting in an uncomely fashion towards his own daughter, not having power over his own will: this reeks of sexual impropriety. Also, it is unlikely that a man could decree "in his heart that he will keep his virgin", or virgin daughter - as in keeping her either to himself, keeping her a virgin, or preventing her from marriage. All of this, in the context of one's personal service to our Lord, makes no sense and borders on religious slavery from the daughter's point of view, especially if she happens not to be a believer.
It is more likely that the word "virgin" refers to any believer's own virgin self, regardless of gender. In II Cor. 11:2, Paul refers to the Corinthians as being presented to the Christ as a "chaste virgin": in context this clearly applies to the entire group, male and female. It seems that in I Cor. 7, Paul is speaking of anyone (the word "man" at the beginning of v. 36 is better rendered "one") behaving in an uncomely fashion in terms of defiling him- or herself through sex outside of marriage. In that case, it is better to give one's self in marriage: remaining single is preferable, but marriage is no sin and is preferable to sexual immorality. As Paul says earlier in verse 9 - "...it is better to marry than to burn." This interpretation is supported by the Holy Name Bible, and the Interlinear Bible published by Hendrickson.
With this understanding, we may read the passage in this way, "But if anyone thinks he is behaving indecently toward his virginity - if he is beyond his prime, and it ought to be so - let him do what he desires: he does not sin - let them marry. But he who stands firm in heart, not having necessity (to marry), but has authority as to his own will, and has judged in his heart to keep his virginity; he does well. So he that gives (himself) in marriage does well; and he that does not give (himself) in marriage does better." (paraphrase, The Interlinear Bible, Hendrickson Publishers)
How much clearer and more consistent is this interpretation. It shows us how it easy to be in our Father's service, and shows how accepting our Father is of us and our circumstances. Whether we be married or unmarried, let our service to Him be wholehearted and as much as possible without distraction: in this way we become pleasing in His eyes.
Where was the Sermon on the Mount Given?
The account of Yahshua's "Sermon on the Mount" is presented in Matthew 4:25-8:1. Here Yahshua teaches the well-known "Beatitudes" (or "Blessings") and so many other points of doctrine that are integral to our faith as His people. Interestingly, many lists of alleged "Bible contradictions", and explanations of those so-called contradictions, perceive a problem with this passage in Matthew and a similar passage in Luke 6:17-49. A very surprising paradox emerges when we examine these discussions: although one group disbelieves the Bible and the other group accepts it as God's truth, both seem to agree that these Scriptures do not mean what they say.
In Matthew 5:1-2 we read, "And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set...He opened His mouth and taught them..." It's very clear here exactly what is happening and where. However, in Luke 6:17 it says, "And He came down with them, and stood in the plain..." and then in verse 20 "...He lifted up his eyes on His disciples, and said..." the teachings that followed. Here we have a completely different location for the sermon and also a different and much abbreviated version of the account given in Matthew.
The paradox arises when disbelievers and believers attempt to address these passages from their respective positions. Disbelievers claim that these two passages are contradictory reports of the same event - this is proof to them that Scripture is self-contradictory and an unreliable, unbelievable witness. The interesting similarity between these disbelievers and many believers is that the believers also claim that the two passages are reporting the same event, despite the differences in location and the details of the sermons. Some of these "believers" try to finesse their way around these differences by claiming that Yahshua stood on a flat place on a mountain, thereby being both on a plain and a mountain. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that in one Gospel He goes up to the mountain and in the other He goes down to the plain. They also teach that the differences between the sermons is merely a difference in how the respective Gospelists reported the one sermon, not a true discrepancy in the Gospels themselves.
While we can understand and sympathize with the efforts of both groups, we must understand that both are wrong in their explanations, as a close examination of Scripture will prove. If we follow the events in both Gospels, we will find an awesome truth.
A list of events in Matthew is as follows:
- Matt. 4:25-8:1 - Sermon on the Mount
- Matt. 8:2-4 - Healing of leper
- Matt. 8:5-13 - Healing of centurion's servant
- Matt. 8:14-15 - Healing of Peter's wife's mother
- Matt. 8:16-22 - Dealing with multitudes
- Matt. 8:23-27 - Calming of storm
- Matt. 8:28-34 - Casting demons out of two in Gergesenes
- Matt. 9:1-8 - Healing of palsy victim
- Matt. 9:9-17 - Calling of Matthew and dinner with publicans; questions about fasting
- Matt. 9:18-19 - Request to raise ruler's dead daughter
- Matt. 9:20-22 - Healing of diseased woman
- Matt. 9:23-26 - Resurrection of dead girl
- Matt. 9:27-31 - Healing of two blind men
- Matt. 9:32-38 - Multiple healings
- Matt. 10:1-11:1 - Calling and sending of 12 disciples
A corresponding list for Luke shows the following:
- Luke 4:31-37 - Casting demon out of man in Capernaum synagogue
- Luke 4:38-39 - Healing of Peter's wife's mother
- Luke 4:40-44 - Dealing with multitudes
- Luke 5:1-11 - Calling of Peter and his acceptance, along with James and John
- Luke 5:12-16 - Healing of leper
- Luke 5:17-26 - Healing of man with palsy
- Luke 5:27-39 - Calling of Levi (Matthew), dinner with publicans, questions about fasting
- Luke 6:1-5 - Sabbath discussion
- Luke 6:6-11 - Healing of withered hand
- Luke 6:12-16 - Gathering of Disciples
- Luke 6:17-49 - Sermon on the Plain
If we accept that Scripture truly means what it says and that events occur in the order in which they are presented, then the truth becomes evident. A comparison of all of these passages shows us some unique, unrepeated events which are reported in both Gospels after the Sermon on the Mount but before the Sermon on the Plain: the healing of Peter's mother-in-law and the calling of Matthew and dinner at his house being two of the most obvious ones. This examination proves that there were two sermons - one given on a mountain (probably in Galilee - Matt. 4:23), and one given on an unnamed plain. This also explains the differences in the two sermons - the sermon given on the plain is substantially shorter than the one on the mountain, though both contained the same basic teachings.
The wonderful truth to be found through this study is that Scripture can be trusted to mean what it says. We need not dance around details of events in different Gospels which at a casual first glance appear to contradict each other. If we face these things honestly and with faith in the unerring truth of Scripture and search for that truth diligently, we can find an awesome integrity in the four Gospel accounts - an integrity unimagined and unadmitted by most people, believers and non-believers alike.
Well did Paul say in Romans 11:33: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" And how blessed we are to have His inspired Word to teach us His truth!
Did You Know?
Page 1
Page 3,
Page 4
If you have any comments or questions you'd like answered, please
e-mail us at
houseofyahshua@hotmail.com