 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
COMMENTARY |
|
This commentary is a dynamic rather than a static commentary, constantly changing and growing with more information. The Bible translation will be the Bible Commentator modified version of the King James Version (BCKJV), which will also change over time as necessary for accuracy and understanding based on examination of all available original language manuscripts. Genesis: 1:24-31,
2:4b-25, 3:1-7, 6:1-5
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE COMMENTARY ON A PASSAGE NOT YET LISTED BELOW, PLEASE EMAIL US WITH YOUR REQUEST AT biblecommentator@aol.com. |
|
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his species, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his species: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his species, and cattle after their species, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his species: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 24-25. As in the creation of all life created on days three and four, God again creates all animals according to their species ("kind" in most versions). If we are to take this account literally, then the theories of macroevolution as they now stand must be rejected as inconsistent with the biblical account. There can be no doubt that God created a variety of different species independent from one another which did not evolve in any manner in order to come into existence. Though I personally do not find any real support for macroevolution in either the Bible or science so called, the text still allows for one possibility in which a limited evolutionary process could have taken place among the different species of animals we have today. Though it is highly unlikely, these distinct species or archetypes originally created could have each evolved with distinct lines of multiple species coming from each different archetype. Yet, before this idea can really be entertained at all with any real logic and reason, science has the burden of proving that speciation of animals (one species changing into another) can actually really take place. Like prior days of creation, everything that was created on this day was "good" in the sight of God. 26-27. The "us" and "our" spoken by God without any identification of the object to whom God is speaking seems to strongly support the view that God is speaking of himself and to himself in the form of at least two distinct persons. Yet, we also cannot assume that the passage is speaking of "gods" in the sense of more than one God since we find no support of their being distinct gods anywhere. God is always one God throughout the book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Nor can we logically speculate that God is speaking to the angels, for to assume this would imply that God is establishing an equality of himself with the created angels. We would have God not creating man in his image, but in the image of himself and the angels. Even if one argues that the angels are also created in the image of God and this explains the statement, you cannot escape the distinct hint of equality in the words of God consorting with his angels and working together with them as equals. In other places where God speaks like this (Gen. 3:22), he never identifies the object as angels or anything else, which would be a very strange way for the writer to write if the object was someone or something outside of God. In addition, this would have God and the angels both creating man together which is not supported anywhere else in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. On the other hand, we find throughout the New Testament that it was the Word of God with whom God created the world and mankind. The wording here in Genesis is exactly what we should expect to find if there were distinct persons making up the godhead of one God. The let us make "man in our image, after our likeness" is a very complex statement which is open to a variety of interpretations that vary among commentators. Regardless of how this is understood, it does signify that we are in some way created in the image and likeness of God which all the animals in the creation lack. We are unique and special among all of created life. Because we are created in his image and likeness, we are able to fellowship with God as a companion and friend. God also give us authority and rule over all other creatures on the earth. 28. Even before the fall, man was told to multiply and populate the earth, showing that the mating and reproductive process was part of the plan of the original creation. In addition, man was to rule over all other species of life upon the face of the earth. 29-30. The original food for mankind and all the other animals was the plants and trees of the earth. Man did not eat animals, and animals did not eat each other. The original bodily structure of man and animals coupled with the environmental conditions of the original creation made this possible. After the fall, things changed. 31. The entire creation of the world and everything in it was "good" in the sight of God.
4b In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 and before any plants of the field were in the earth, and before any herb of the field grew-- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground--6 there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is the one that compasses the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is the one that compasses the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is the one that goes toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper for him. (19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper for him.) 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, he made a woman, and brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. General Notes. Though many see this as a second account of the creation, it actually is not really a second account at all, but instead a further elaboration on the creation of man within the context of God's creation, including man's function and his relationship with the rest of the created world. Though other aspects of the creation such as the land, plants, and animals are mentioned, these are only discussed in relevance to their relationship with man. It is only when we understand this section as an elaboration rather than a second creation account that we can further understand its significance and its importance. When we look closely, we find here the necessity of man in the very foundation of physical life. 4b. This actual last part of verse four may actually be part of the ending of the main account of creation described in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 along with the beginning of verse four. Nevertheless, either way, verse 5 is where the elaboration actually begins. And regardless to which section to which we attribute this part of verse four, the word "day" in the clause must be understood as a period of time and not a literal day. 5. The writer is here speaking of a period of time that would coincide within day three of the creation account. It is before any green plants have grown on the earth. It is a land without plant life, the bare naked earth before any physical life came into being. There has been no water upon the land so that the plants cannot grow. Though we cannot be certain, it does seem to imply that the seeds of life for the plants are already in the soil, since the writer attributes the lack of growth to the lack of water (which would further strengthen the support for a literal seven day creation theory). There is also another problem the writer sees--even if the plants do start to grow, they may not survive since there is no human being to till the ground and care for the plants (we must understand that weeds did not exist until after the fall and are a result of the curse, and the writer is describing existence as it was meant to be before the fall). The writer begins by emphasizing the problem of no sustainable life (for without the successful growth of plants, no life can survive), presenting a bare earth devoid of any possibility of life. There were two things necessary for life to begin and be sustainable: water and mankind. Here, the importance of mankind is subtly emphasized as the absolute necessity to successful physical life on the earth. Though God creates mankind, he is necessary in the plan of sustainable physical life. 6. Of course, God's plan of creation is perfect so he solves the problems described in verse five. First, God begins watering the earth by starting a continual process of water rising from the ground. To understand this watering of the ground as taking place without resulting in the growth of plants is to miss the point of this passage entirely. The writer is not describing the ground being watered during some period of no plant life, but rather telling us how the ground was watered so plants could come into existence. 7. This verse is actually a continuation of the resolution of the problem of verse five and the second part of the solution. After God begins watering the earth, he then creates man after the plants begin to grow so that man can till the ground. We here have a rapid move from day three of the creation to day six, since this writer is here only concerned with the initial problem of sustainable life and the solution, not the process of any creation that takes place in between. It now becomes very difficult to ignore the probability of a literal seven day creation since this supports a short duration between plant life and the creation of man, for the writer sees man as necessary for the successful sustainable growth of the plants. This description actually supports the literal seven day creation view since man is there created three days after the plants appear on the earth. It is also interesting to note that it is only after life has begun with God's watering of the earth that God then creates man out of that very earth that he has watered. Man is not created out of a dry lifeless earth, but out of an earth that has already begun to bring forth life so that man can tend it and take care of it. We are told that God gave the breath of life to the man he had made, and that only then that man became a living soul. God did not breath the soul into man, but the breath of life; it was the breath of life animating the body that resulted in man becoming a living soul. All life comes from God, from the seed in the ground, to the water that brings forth the plants, to the breath that animates the living soul of man, to the man who was created to sustain life on the earth--all is from God and because of God. 8-15. We are told that God also created a special garden in Eden. Though we are not told when exactly God planted this garden, we should probably assume this was sometime between the third day when plants began to grow and the sixth day when he made man. It seems to imply that upon creating man, God then took him and placed him immediately in this garden. It should also be emphasized that the writer again stresses the purpose of man to till and care for the plants, something the writer quite certainly felt was necessary to sustain life on the earth. 16-17. This first created man ate freely from the growth in the garden, showing us that this was a real physical man with physical needs even before the fall. His food was the growth from the earth. God now warns Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and tells Adam that when he eats from it, he will die. It seems from the description that God is not only warning Adam, but prophesying that Adam will disobey him and eat of that tree, and that when he does, he will then die. 18-25. The writer now explains how God is going to give Adam someone of his own species to help him. It is absolutely crucial that we understand verses 19 and 20 as a parenthetical thought describing what had already happened and not as the actual process of God trying to create and find a helper for Adam. These are prior events that had already taken place before God says he is going to make a helper for Adam. The writer is only attempting to stress the point that Adam was alone when he named the animals and that there was no other person alive. Though Adam may have come to recognize his loneliness while naming the animals who most likely had mates, it is absurd to assume that God and/or Adam were looking for a suitable helper among the animals. Nor should we erroneously assume the writer is now saying the animals were created after Adam, for that also is not the case and any such interpretation would again be missing the point of the passage. The animals were actually created before Adam and then after the creation of Adam they were brought forth for him to name. The only reason the animals are even mentioned at all is because they relate to the absence of a suitable helper for Adam. Verses 19 and 20 are merely there to give you background information on Adam being alone on the earth without a helper before God creates the woman. One can remove the writer's parenthetical explanation consisting of verses 19 and 20 and get the flow of the writer's main thought. The woman was created from Adam and after Adam. This is a further elaboration of Genesis 1:26-27, giving much more detail about how the creation of mankind as male and female took place. The man was first created and then the woman was created as a helper and companion for the man, ensuring the continuation of the species. And unlike the female companions of the animals who were created from the earth, woman was taken directly from the substance of the created man and formed from him. This is a unique and special process that really made the woman part of the man in real and tangible sense. Unlike the animal mates who were merely formed from the same substance, the woman was actually part of her mate. They were in some real sense one. The implication now is that because of this unique form of creation in which the woman was taken from the substance of the man, that when a man and a woman come together they in some deeper sense again become one in a way in which the animals do not. Marriage is a special blessing where the man and the woman can become close and intimate as of one flesh even as Adam and Eve were of one flesh. We are told that Adam and Eve were both naked and not ashamed. This was the perfection of intimacy between a man and a woman. This account of the creation of mankind is taken literally as a true historical event by the Apostle Paul, who writes, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tit. 2:12).
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, Yea, has God said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. 4 And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die: 5 For God knows that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 3. A popular teaching that Eve added to the words of God in this verse with "neither touch it" is probably not a valid interpretation. We cannot assume that because of the absence of these words in the text that God did not say this. For example, in John 11:28, Martha tells Mary that Jesus is calling for her even though we find no mention of this in the proceeding verses. Are we to assume here that this conversation between Martha and Jesus never took place just because of its absence in the preceding text? Of course not. The point is that interpreting the silence of Scripture in this way is not a valid method of exegesis. In looking at the verse in question, we must first examine the statement to God that does exist in the text, where we find God warning Adam (Gen. 2:17). Something crucial to note here is that this statement to Adam was most likely before God even made Eve. Now, we must assume that either God allowed the warning to be passed on from Adam to Eve, or that God also gave a personal warning to Eve as well. Though there is no way to determine with absolute certainty which is the case, it is highly unlikely that he left this responsibility to Adam (and even if He did, there may have been another conversation once Eve was created in which God told Adam to warn her) and instead more probable that God spoke personally to Eve as well. We also must keep in mind that though we may read quotations in the biblical text, they may not always be complete as is obvious when the same sayings of Jesus are examined in multiple Gospels. Either way, God may in fact have said these words "neither touch it"; and based on the context in question, there is no valid reason to believe otherwise. We also must take into account that no other biblical writer implies anything about Eve adding to God's words. In addition, even the Jewish historian Josephus seems to believe God said this when he writes, "and [God] foretold to them that, if they touched it, it would prove their destruction (antiq. b. i. chap. i. sect. 4, italics mine).
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be 120 years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 2. The sons of God is a reference to angels in this passage. This was the view of most of the early church fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Lactantius, and even Eusebius), the Jewish historian Josephus, the Jew Philo, and most early rabbinic writers. This was also the translation in the Greek Septuagint used by most of the early church. As we can see when examining the book of Job, "Sons of god" was a term recognized as referring to angels. Job is believed by many scholars and commentators to have been a contemporary of Abraham and the book may have even been known to Moses if it was already written (Midian where Moses lived for 40 years is not far from the Uz of Job). Whether we believe Job was written before chapter six of Genesis or not, it seems highly unlikely that Job would use "sons of God" to refer to angels and Genesis would use "sons of God" to refer to humans as some critics suggest, that Job or the writer of Job would understand the term to refer to angels and Moses to a pure line of humans. Many of the arguments against the "sons of God" as being angels are mere human spawned suppositions based on the critics own interpretation of reality rather than based on biblical text. For example, one famous radio commentator even argues that if angels can take on a human body then we have no basis for believing that the resurrected Jesus was really him since it could have been an angel tricking us. This is a ridiculous argument that fails to take into account the multitude of possible variables involved in angels taking on a human body in this case. In addition, even if there were no variables, the fact that if angels could take on a human body they could have tricked us by pretending to be the resurrected Christ does not invalidate the clear meaning of Scripture simply because a perceived problem arises. That's as foolish as arguing that since the dead body dissipates, the Scripture cannot be talking about a real bodily resurrection, so it must mean something else. One cannot build one self-generated supposition upon another and use this to argue a position. Those who do this almost always fall into serious error. When we examine the passage in context, it is very difficult to imagine any other interpretation for the "sons of God" other than angels. This was the view of everyone until the fourth century when Juihus Afracanius introduced the theory that "sons of God" were men from the line of Seth. Jude also seems to imply that these angels abandoned their original purpose and first abode to pursue sexual immorality (Jude 1:6-7). Something that should be noted here is that there is absolutely no indication anywhere in the Bible that other angels rebelled with Satan, but rather all biblical evidence seems to point to the fact that Satan first rebelled and fell by himself. Jesus only identifies Satan as falling like lighting from heaven with no reference to other angels (Luke 10:8). The other angels sinned later by sexual immorality as found here in chapter six of Genesis. Even the passage in Revelation 12 says that the Dragon pulled 1/3 of the stars (which most commentators correctly identify as angels) down to the earth with his tail, not his arm (Rev. 12:3). This would instead seem to indicate they followed after him later in sin and rebellion. 6. One must not get the mistaken idea that God did not know this was going to happen, for He is omniscient and knows all things from the beginning to the end. It was God's grief over man's self-chosen plight, and reminds one of Jesus crying over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-42).
1 Furthermore David the king said to all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God has chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the LORD God. 2 Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for things to be made of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and the brass for things of brass, the iron for things of iron, and wood for things of wood; onyx stones, and stones to be set, glistering stones, and of divers colors, and all manner of precious stones, and marble stones in abundance. 3 Moreover, because I have set my affection to the house of my God, I have of mine own proper good, of gold and silver, which I have given to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house, 4 Even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal: 5 The gold for things of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and for all manner of work to be made by the hands of artificers. And who then is willing to consecrate his service this day to the LORD? 6 Then the chief of the fathers and princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers of the king's work, offered willingly, 7 And gave for the service of the house of God of gold five thousand talents and ten thousand drams, and of silver ten thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred thousand talents of iron. 8 And they with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of the LORD, by the hand of Jehiel the Gershonite. 9 Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy. 2. God had told David that he could not build the house of God himself because he had lived a life as a man of war and had shed blood (1 Chron. 28:3), but that Solomon would build it (1 Chron. 28:6). It is probably unlikely that there is any mystical significance here over the types of metals, stones and wood used. 7-8. These leaders and officials who offered were most likely delivering the offerings of not only themselves, but of those whom each of them represented. This was an offering of all the people. Though David gave gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and precious stones, it only mentions gold, silver, brass, iron, and precious stones as the contribution of the people. The absence of any mention of wood in their offerings is most likely simply because they did not give wood, either because they didn't have supplies of wood to give or because there was no more need since David may have gotten all that was needed. Another possibility is that they did in fact give wood as well but that is simply is not mentioned as being of little significance to the writer (simple silence by itself does not establish facts in proper biblical interpretation). They also may not have given all the types of precious stones as David and it seems to imply that they were somewhat more rare so that only some people had them to give. 9. This is the second time that it is mentioned they offered willingly (cf. v. 6) and this is mentioned over and over again in the passages that follow. This was a very important point to the writer. These people were not compelled, but did so out of a true desire to give. It says they had a "perfect heart" when they did this. This is the method of giving that Christians are supposed to follow as instructed by Paul (2 Cor. 9:7). Both David and all the people rejoiced with great joy because of this willful giving from the heart. We see here a case history confirming the truth proclaimed by Jesus that it is more blessed to give then to receive (Acts 20:35).
10 Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be you, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. 11 Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all. 12 Both riches and honor come of you, and you reign over all; and in your hand is power and might; and in your hand it is to make great, and to give strength to all. 13 Now therefore, our God, we thank you, and praise your glorious name. 14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of you, and of your own have we given you. 15 For we are strangers before you, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding. 16 O LORD our God, all this store that we have prepared to build you a house for your holy name comes of your hand, and is all your own. 17 I know also, my God, that you try the heart, and has pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy your people, which are present here, to offer willingly to you. 18 O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this forever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of your people, and prepare their heart to you: 19 And give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep your commandments, your testimonies, and your statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for the which I have made provision. 20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king. 11. Notice the similarity between this verse and that at the end of the Lord's prayer in some New Testament manuscripts, both using the words kingdom, power and glory. (cf. Matt. 6:13) 19. It is very significant to note here that God did not answer this request in its entirety as David prayed, for Solomon had a divided heart and eventually turned to the worship of other gods. We must at first wonder why God did not grant this reasonable petition by David for his son Solomon, but the answer is not hard to find. Men have free will and God does not override the free will of man though he may use external events and circumstances to act on the internal heart and mind. Solomon's sinful lifestyle with women and idolatry may be due in part to the influence of his own father and mother, for it seems difficult to imagine that Solomon did not know of the sins of adultery and murder that gained his mother as David's wife and eventually resulted in his own birth. Both his parents were guilty of adultery and his father of murder, but God still loved them, and we can conclude with near certainty that this had a significant impact on the mind and heart of Solomon. Though the children are not responsible for the sins of the parents, they do often suffer the consequences of their influence on their own lives, both externally and internally.
21 And they sacrificed sacrifices to the LORD, and offered burnt offerings to the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel: 22 And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him to the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. 23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. 24 And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves to Solomon the king. 25 And the LORD magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel. 26 Thus David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel. 27 And the time that he reigned over Israel was forty years; seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem. 28 And he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor: and Solomon his son reigned in his stead. 29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, 30 With all his reign and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.
16 And, behold, one came and said to him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said to him, Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him, Which? Jesus said, You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and your mother: and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20 The young man said to him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said to him, If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 16. We must understand that there were many saying that Jesus was simply a "good" man (John 7:12), and this man was apparently one of them. He did not recognize Jesus for who really was, but simply saw him as a "good" man, a "good" teacher. This man was seeking eternal life based on the good works he must do rather than recognizing the need for a savior. 17. It is very crucial to understand exactly what Jesus means by his words in this passage since it is often misunderstood and used as a proof passage by those who wish to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus claiming that he is not God? The first thing that must be emphasized in this passage is that Jesus has attributed "good" with "God." In this passage, either Jesus is not good and not God, or Jesus is good and is God. You cannot have one without the other. If one wishes to insist that Jesus is saying he is not God, then he must also be saying he is not good. Yet, we know for a fact that Jesus was without sin so it is impossible here that he is denying that he is good. It is also crucial to note that Jesus never said he was not good or that he was not God, he instead asked the man why he was calling him good since only God is good. If we examine the words of Jesus in other passages, we find him calling other men good (Matt. 5:45; 12:35; 22:10; 25:21, 23), so what does he mean here exactly in this passage since at first glance it appears to be a contradiction to other statements he has made. As the notes on v. 16 indicate, this man was not coming to Jesus as savior, but to Jesus as a "good" man. In addition, he himself felt that he was "good" because of "good things" he was doing. The response relating to "good" here in this passage must be understood within the context of Jesus dealing with a man who felt that people were "good" in the sense of being without sin and able to receive eternal life by their own efforts or goodness. This is the meaning of "good" as used by the man which is different than the "good" used by Jesus in other passages. By asking the man why he was calling him "good" and insisting that only God was good, Jesus was rebuking the man for his belief that men could be good in the sense of being sinless and worthy of eternal life, for only God was without sin. Since he was perceiving Jesus merely as a "good" man and teacher rather than the Son of God, Jesus was asking him why he was calling him "good" in the sense of being a man without sin since this was only possible for God. When we understand the real significance of this passage and the claim on Jesus that only God could be "good" in the sense of being sinless, this verse is actually a further confirmation of the deity of Jesus since he was "good" in the sense of being without sin. We must understand this verse simply as a rebuke of the man's theology.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 This same one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him there wasn't anything made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness did not overcome it. 1. "Beginning" as used here is most likely a reference to the beginning of the creation referred to in Genesis 1:1, taking us back to before any created thing came into existence. The Word (Logos in the original Greek) existed prior to any created thing along with God. While God as the Father is distinct from the Word, the Word is also God. This sentence was very carefully phrased to make sure God the Father and the Word were portrayed as distinct in persons but of one and the same nature. John wants us to know that both God the Father and God the Word existed prior to any created thing as distinct persons equal in substance and being as one God. The Word was of the same nature of God the Father, for He too was God. 2. John again emphasizes that this Word who was distinct from God the Father and of the same nature with God the Father was with God the Father prior to the beginning of creation. They were there together before anything was created. 3. When John says "all things" were created through the Word and that there wasn't "anything" made without him, this must be understood as every created thing, further emphasizing that the Word was himself was not created. The Greek word "dia" sometimes translated "by" here has a large number of possible translations but is best understood here as "through" since John is trying to explain that God the Father created all things in existence through the Word. To use "by" here can give the false impression that the Word created everything while God the Father was inactive in the creation. God the Father was active through the Son by whom all was created.
1 And Saul, still breathing out threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 And desired letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any of the Way, whether men or women, that he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus; and suddenly there shined around him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? 5 And he said, Who art you, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom you persecute: it is hard for you to kick against the goads. 6 And trembling and astonished, he said, Lord, what will you have me to do? And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told you what you must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no one. 8 And Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man, so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drink. 7. Some critics have claimed that there is a contradiction between this verse and Acts 22:9 because it says here that those with him heard the voice and it says in Acts 22:9 that they did not. Where these critics err is that they insist on getting too technical in order to force their apparent bias upon the two passages. What we first must realize in order to grasp the real meaning of the two passages is to understand that this is a real voice, the voice of God, speaking to Paul--it is not a meaningless sound regardless of whether someone hears it this way or not. When Luke is telling the story here in Acts 9:7, his emphasis is on the fact that the men heard the voice of God, and whether or not they actually understood it is irrelevant to Luke in this passage--it's still the voice of God they heard. He would not say they heard a "sound" here since it is actually a voice speaking (not a mere sound) and he wants to let us know they not only saw the light but heard the voice of God as well, even if all they comprehended was a sound of the voice. In Acts 22:9, we have a different scenario entirely in which Paul is making his defense to the Jews in an apologetic manner, quite different than Luke's simple historical narrative being told in a friendly manner. When Paul says that those with him did not hear the voice, he is only conveying the fact that they did not hear it as a voice. For Paul to further explain that they heard the sound of the voice is simply not necessary for his argument in which he is trying to convince the Jews about the truth of Jesus (for the mention of the witnesses hearing the voice as a sound could easily be dismissed by his critics, and it is for this reason he mentions the light and focuses on this instead). It is quite apparent that the men actually heard the voice of God speaking, but that they did not understand it as a voice. When Luke says they heard the voice, he is correct, even if they did not comprehend it as such (though they must have certainly assumed it was a voice because of the light around them coupled with Paul in conversation with the voice, which is most likely Luke's point, and is why Luke adds "seeing no one"). And when Paul explains that the men did not hear the voice, this too is correct, since though they heard the voice, their ears only understood it as some type of sound rather than a voice speaking words. Luke is speaking of the voice with an emphasis on its source as the voice of God while Paul is speaking of the voice with an emphasis on those who witness the event and were not able to comprehend it as a voice regardless of whether they heard it or not. Luke is explaining the event in an almost evangelistic style to a friendly audience while Paul is explaining the event in a defensive manner to a hostile, critical audience. It's just two different ways of accurately conveying what happened as different objectives, circumstances, and audiences demand. As I have shown in this explanation, just because both Luke and Paul used the same word "voice" in different ways does not create a contradiction. What's important is not the word itself, but what they meant by the word in their accounts. In John 12:28-29 when God spoke to Jesus, Jesus understood the voice, but many of those around him did not, even though they heard it. Some thought it was thunder, others the voice of an angel. In this case as well, it can either be said that they heard the voice or that they did not hear the voice, depending upon what you are trying to say, who you are talking to, and what your emphasis is. To find a contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 based on insisting that both Luke and Paul are using one word the same way regardless of the different circumstances of usage, especially when both accounts were written by the same writer in the same book about the same event, is just utter foolishness.
13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 When she recognized Peter's voice, because of her gladness she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter stood before the gate. 15 But they said to her, "You are beside yourself!" Yet she kept insisting that it was so. So they said, "It is his messenger." 16 Now Peter continued knocking; and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 15. "It is his angel" as translated in many English versions is an obvious error of the translators. The Greek word angelos can be translated to either "angel" or "messenger," since it basically means a messenger, and is used for both angels and men in the New Testament. Common sense dictates that these people who refuse to believe that somehow Peter is free are not going to instead conclude that an angel of God is standing outside knocking on their gate. They simply believe that rather than being Peter, it is instead somebody who Peter sent as his messenger, and that Rhoda simply heard the name "Peter" but was mistaken in identifying the voice as Peter's.
44 And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth. 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord, and believed, as many as had determined themselves for eternal life. 48. In direct contrast to the Jews who judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life by rejecting the truth in v. 46, these Gentiles believed and longed for the promise of eternal life that was offered. The Greek word tetagmenoi means appointed, ordained, set, determined, etc., and can be translated in either the passive voice (meaning they were appointed) or the middle voice (meaning they determined, set or appointed themselves). Most versions have mistakenly translated this in the passive voice, missing the writer's point entirely. A contrast is being presented between the Jews and the Gentiles and their attitudes toward the truth that leads to eternal life (notice the "everlasting life" in v. 46 and the "eternal life" in v. 48, neither of which are mentioned anywhere else in Acts). The contrast is as follows:
A good paraphrase would be "as many as had made the decision for eternal life." The focus of this passage is specifically on the contrasting choice and responsibility of those accepting and rejecting the gospel and has nothing whatsoever to do with predestination.
25 And he wrote a letter after this manner: 26 Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix sends greeting. 27 This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him. Having learned that he was a Roman, 28 and wanting to know the accusation of which they accused him, I brought him forth before their council: 29 Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. 30 And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to you, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before you what they had against him. Farewell. 27. The common, but false, pulpit teaching that Claudius Lysias lied to Felix to praise his own actions when claiming to rescue Paul because he knew he was a Roman is the result of a simple error in punctuation. The period should be after "rescued him," not after "was a Roman" as it now is in almost all versions. The next sentence should begin with "Having learned that he was a Roman, and wanting to know," etc. Common sense dictates that Claudius is not going to try and get credit for something he didn't do and then send the witness along with the letter, who of course could easily testify about the fabrication, resulting in the absolute opposite effect if lying to exalt his own action was his intention. For those who don't know, the punctuation in our New Testament Greek manuscripts was added later by copyists. The proper punctuation of the letter simply has Claudius telling exactly what happened and there is no lie or fabrication.
26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. 28. In order to draw correct applications from this passage, it is first crucial we arrive at a correct interpretation of what Paul is saying. First off, this passage applies only to Christians, not to unbelievers. The main thrust of this passage is that all Christians are equal in their relationship with God and all are equally heirs according to the promise given to Abraham. This passage focuses on our relationship with God, showing that their is no partiality with God because of race, social status, or gender. Salvation is not only for the Jew, but for the gentile as well. All are children of God through faith in Christ. Those who try to imply this passage does away with any type of functional distinction in church administration, social responsibility, or any other type of situation are missing the point entirely and attempting to read something into the text that simply is not there. This has nothing whatsoever to do with function and certainly has nothing to do with church administration. It does not in any sense dissolve functional distinctions established in creation or in commandment by God. This passage does not eliminate any existing prior distinctions of function between male and female just as much as it fails to eliminate a distinction of function between slave and freeman. Both Paul and Peter make it very clear that a distinction between the function of slave and servant remained even for Christians (Eph. 6:5-8, Col. 3:22-24, 1 Tim. 6:1-2, Tit. 2:9-10, 1 Pet. 2:18-19). This verse should be read in context with 1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 6:8 and Col. 3:11.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men 2 (For kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty). 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not); a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 1. Paul here instructs that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, not just Christians. 2. This verse is a secondary thought within the context of the overall prayer for all men and that is why I have placed it in parentheses so that it does not detract from his main point to pray for all men. Paul often has a secondary thought which momentarily interrupts the main point. 4. It is God's desire that all men be saved. 6. The ransom of Christ was for all, the same "all" as mentioned in verse 4. There is no change of subject here, but it remains the "all men" being prayed for whom God desires to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.
8 I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becomes women professing godliness ) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 12. This passage is a specific instruction from Paul that a woman should not teach in the church nor usurp authority over the man, but must learn in silence. This verse has caused a great degree of controversy in this day and age of women's rights and liberation. In order to interpret this passage with accuracy, it is first crucial we do not attempt to force our own subjective desires, frustrations or bias upon the passage. When Paul said he did not permit a woman to teach, this must be understood in the context of the church setting and concerning theological issues. Women were not to be teaching theological issues to a congregation, especially in the case where men were among the group. In other words, this has no reference to teaching non-theological subjects in a contemporary setting. And the "not usurping authority over the man" must again be understood concerning taking the initiative upon themselves to teach men theological subjects. This does not apply to women supervising men in a working environment since this has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's point. The issue is the divine teachings of God. 13. The first point Paul makes here to drive home his point is that it was the man who was created first and then the woman. He is insisting that their is an order in the created universe in which the man is the head over the woman (1 Cor. 11:3). Even though Paul says there is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:12), this was a reference to all being saved in Christ and has nothing to do with the order of creation being abolished. Paul specifically declares that the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). Paul's usage of the order of creation prior to the fall of mankind to support his argument shows that Paul felt this to be a universal command not limited by time, environment or circumstances. 14. Now Paul moves into the actual transgression itself, producing a secondary basis of support for his command. It was the woman who was deceived, not the man. The implication of Paul is that the woman is more easily deceived than the man on theological issues. Contrary to what many teach on this passage, it is not saying that Adam was not deceived within the context of the actual transgression of the two; to teach this is to miss the point of Paul entirely. Justin Martyr actually believes that Adam was deceived as well (Diag. Try. 103). Paul is referring specifically to Satan's decision to target Eve. She was the one directly deceived by the wiles of Satan, not Adam. Adam may have been fooled by the circumstances (Eve having eaten the fruit with no visible consequences), but he was not himself directly deceived by Satan, Eve was. It is highly unlikely Adam saw the serpent, and Eve may not have even told Adam about it before he ate the fruit. Though Eve told God that Satan deceived her, Adam makes no mention of the serpent and instead blames Eve for giving him the fruit (Gen. 3:12-13). God acknowledges that Adam listened to his wife when he ate, making no mention of the serpent either in regards to Adam's sin (Gen. 3:17). It is also interesting to note here, that because of her sin, God not only announced that Eve would suffer the pains of child birth, but that her husband would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). 15. With the mention of childbearing, Paul is staying directly within the context of his argument. The pain of childbirth (along with the subjection of the woman to her husband) was the consequences for women as a result of the transgression of Eve. Contrary to some fanciful interpretations, this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary giving birth to Jesus, but instead is a direct reference to women in general as is the entire passage under consideration here. This is not a universal statement to be applied to all women, but must be understood as speaking to Christian women about whom he was writing. It speaks of accepting their proper place in the order of God's creation as declared in the two points he just expounded, with the traits of "faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" inclusive in this acceptance.
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2. The phrase "husband of one wife" here and in verse 11 has been the subject of debate, with some insisting it means having only been married once and others interpreting it as meaning having only one wife in their current state rather than more than one. We must understand that whatever our interpretation of this passage, it is not an argument to determine what is acceptable in the case of divorce for this passage simply has no bearing on that subject. It is about the conditions for church administration. The first thing we must consider is that these requirements in the passage above are related to the current state of the candidates, not their past. Since Christians are forgiven for all past sins, it is very unlikely that Paul is here stating this with the thought of having been married more than once in someone's life. Are we to assume that a pagan who converts to Christianity, who was already divorced and married twice at his conversion is to be barred from administration because of a past sin? Or are we to assume that a Christian who marries a second time after the death or his spouse is ineligible? If one starts adding exceptions, this results in another problem since Paul does not specify any exceptions. In addition, "the husband of one wife" is a very awkward way to say "having been married only once." He seems in all probability to be insisting that church officials have only one wife rather than two of more. When we understand that many in that day and age had more than one wife, especially Jews, this prohibition makes a lot more sense. The practice of several wives among Jews was still strong even in the middle of the second century over a half century later when Justin Martyr wrote:
8. The Greek word for deacon here means to "serve" or "minister" and is translated as such in many passages. When it used as the designation of the official position in the church, it is instead translated as "deacon." The office of deacon originated with the appointment of the seven deacons by the apostles (Acts 6:5). These seven men are called deacons by many of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Eusebius. Deacons were merely those who were responsible for distribution of money to the poor and other simple services. It was the office of menial tasks that gave the bishops freedom to concentrate on their responsibilities of studying, preaching and leading the church. We even find Pliny the Younger, governor of the Roman province of Bithynia, identifying two Christian "servant maids" as "deaconesses" around the year 112. Both Ignatius and Justin Martyr describe one of the tasks of the deacons as passing out communion to the congregation, again a simple function of servitude. Hippolytus, around the year 215, describes the ordination of a deacon as clearly distinguished from a bishop, saying "He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop's command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful." (The Apostolic Tradition 9). Canon 18 in the Council of Nicea in 325 says "let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters." It is important to note and understand here that deacons were not clergy, but servants to the clergy. 11. The claim that "wife" here means simply "woman" in the sense of Paul speaking of women church officials is erroneous. Though the word is translated both "woman" and "wife" in the New Testament, this claim by some that it should be translated here as "woman" in the sense of women deacons is absurd. It is obvious from the context itself that this is a false interpretation of this passage. Unless one wishes to believe that Paul is going to change from talking about men in verse 11 and then switch back again in verse 12 insisting that deacons be the "husbands" of one "wife," that interpretation should be abandoned as total nonsense. Anyone who interprets this passage as being women "deacons" is either lacking basic common sense or is twisting the passage to their own ends in order to falsely solicit support in their rebellion against God's decrees. Even if this passage were in support of women deacons, which it isn't, that still does not provide any validity to support women in pastoral roles since deacons were simply church servants performing basic supportive functions of servitude that had nothing whatsoever to do with administering the Word of God or overseeing God's flock.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true through his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 20. When John speaks of "him that is true," he is speaking of God the Father. The "through" in "through his Son" in the version above is translated by most other versions as "in" to read "in the Son." Though "in" is also a correct interpretation, it is more difficult to comprehend, and the "even" that has been added before "in his Son" by many versions with no textual support just complicates the passage even further. The primary meaning of John is that we are able to be "in" the Father because we are "in" the Son. To better paraphrase the clause, "we are in him that is true because we are in his Son Jesus Christ." To fully comprehend John's use of "true God" in the second sentence here, we need to fully understand John's comprehension of the Son's relationship to the Father as revealed in his gospel and epistles. John could not call Jesus the "true God" apart from God the Father, for he specifically calls God the Father "the only true God" in distinction from Jesus (John 17:3). On the other hand, though the "true God" must have a primary emphasis on the Father here, the Son of God must also be inclusive, for we are in God the Father only through the Son Jesus Christ who is equal in nature and essence with God the Father (John 1:1), and the Son is the manifestation of God the Father to the world (John 14:9). Jesus declared, "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30). It is specifically because the Son is also God that we are able to be in the Father through Him. As Jesus said in the below statements:
Though Jesus is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him, we as Christians are never identified as being directly "in" the Father or the Father directly "in" us, but rather this relationship between us and the Father is always qualified as existing only through the Son. We are only "in" God the Father because we are "in" God the Son, and eternal life is found in the Father through the Son. This is the only way to eternal life. As Jesus also said elsewhere in a passage that is strikingly similar to the verse we are examining, "And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17:3). Another interesting passage to look at when examining this passage is the proclamation of Jesus that, "For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26).
1 To the messenger of the church of Ephesus write; These things says he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the middle of the seven golden candlesticks; 2 I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you cannot bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars: 3 And have borne, and have patience, and for my name's sake have labored, and have not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you are fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come to you quickly, and will remove your candlestick out of his place, except you repent. 6 But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches; To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the middle of the paradise of God. 6. The Nicolaitans were those who believed that they as Christians were to have an attitude of indifference toward both life and food, allowing them to practice fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols, living a life of unrestrained indulgence. Their name comes from Nicolas, one of the seven men first ordained as a deacon by apostles (Acts 6:5). The early church fathers are in disagreement on whether or not Nicolas himself was the one who started this heresy. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus seem to believe that Nicolas himself departed from the true faith as a heretic and taught these corrupted doctrines, while Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus and Eusebius seem to be of the opinion that it was the followers of Nicolas rather than Nicolas himself. The "deeds" of the Nicolaitans were detested by the Lord, for he said that he hated them. Christians today who have an attitude of indifference to sin and think they can commit fornication or other sins as they please because they are forgiven by belief in Christ are living in deception with a similar heretical belief system as that of the Nicolaitans.
8 And to the messenger of the church in Smyrna write; These things says the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 9 I know your works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but you are rich ) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear none of those things which you shall suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and you shall have tribulation ten days: be you faithful to death, and I will give you a crown of life. 11 He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches; He that overcomes shall not be hurt of the second death.
1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. 2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given to him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. 3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. 4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given to him a great sword. 5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. 6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. 7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. 8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and the grave followed with him. And power was given to them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. 2. The identity of the first horse and rider is probably the most heavily disputed of the four horsemen among commentators, with the views varying from Jesus Christ or an angel to the Antichrist or false religion. Even two references we have from the early church fathers disagree. Irenaeus sees it as Jesus Christ (Against Heresies 21:3) and Tertullian sees it as a mere angel that he compares to other angels in Revelation (De Corona 15). Unfortunately, neither one goes into any further detail to explain exactly what this horse and rider are doing. Though I must admit the interpretation of this horse and rider is a difficult task, I doubt that this rider can be Jesus. We find Jesus identified later in Revelation 19 as also on a white horse, but he has many crowns, and his weapon is a sword, not a bow. Also, there is nothing in the text itself that would give us any indication that this horse and rider are to be distinguished from the other three horses and riders in rank or purpose of misery and death. I am not completely satisfied with any interpretation I have read yet of this horseman, but it may very well be that this horseman represents false religion in some sense with its final culmination in the Antichrist as the false Christ, for we must remember that many of the false religions of ancient times did result in the death of innocents, the failure to submit to the worship system of Rome resulted in Christian martyrs, many people are killed in modern times due to false religion, and the future false religious system of the Antichrist will result in multitudes of martyrs as well. It is also interesting to note the use of "beasts of the earth" in v. 8 (which seems to be oddly out of place), one of the means by which early Christians were killed in the arena. The actual amount of innocent people killed as a direct or indirect result of false religion since the creation of man must be staggering. In addition, it is false religion in the form of the serpent deceiving Eve with "you will be like gods" that resulted in the downfall of mankind. It could be said in a sense that false religion was the cause that brought about the rest of the horsemen and maybe that is why it is shown as the first horseman to gallop forward to wreck havoc upon mankind. 4. This horseman represents war. 6. This horseman represents famine and hunger. 8. This horse and rider is the finality and culmination of the first three, with death and the grave as the end result for some of those who find themselves as victims of the first three horsemen. Contrary to most commentators who see the four horseman as riding forth during the tribulation or as some event that takes place after Jesus came to the earth, I believe these four horsemen are the result of the fall, that they galloped fourth upon the world from the sin of Adam and have plagued mankind ever since, that in the end we will discover that one-forth of mankind have died by war, famine, beasts of the earth, and whatever other causes may be represented by the white horseman. From the very beginning when Cain slew Abel, there has never been a peace on the earth for the second horseman to take, the famine of the third horseman has always plagued mankind, and death and the grave have been around since the beginning as well. Even the "beasts of the earth" were the friends of mankind until the fall (as they will be again in paradise). And if we hold to the interpretation of the first horseman as false religion, then that too has been around from the beginning as we have shown above.
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given to every one of them; and it was said to them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. 9. These souls are martyrs, killed for the word of God. 10. Their cry for how long clearly establishes a passage of time even in the heavenly realms. They do not doubt that the "holy and true" Lord will avenge their deaths, and they understand that it is the Lord who will do so. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19). They only ask how long before it will take place. 11. These souls are complete, they have received their robes, are to have rest, and appear to be lacking nothing other than a desire for justice on those who killed them. It is possible that these are those who were resurrected with Christ during his resurrection (Matt. 27:52-53). This verse should dispel any adherence to the ridiculous belief that claims God dwells outside of time so all the saved get to heaven at the same time. They are clearly in heaven, waiting for a period of time to pass so others can arrive as well. It is only after the rest are killed as they were that their blood will be avenged. |
©2003-2007 King & Associates. All Rights Reserved. Click here for information on quoting or copying from this site.