Good morning Pastor John,

      I am not sure if I understand the full meaning of Matthew 2:3: “But having heard of this, King Herod was troubled, and all of Jerusalem with him.”

      Was Jerusalem troubled because a king was born and the leaders were afraid to lose their positions, or was it that Herod troubled them with his actions?  I can see either or both.  I would hope, anyway, if I was there and heard a prophesied king was born, I would rejoice and not be troubled.  Not sure why this struck me today.  But I think it may have been the beginning of Jesus’ troubles with the Jewish leaders.

Mark W.

PS Sorry this is so brief but I am listening to this while doing maintenance on infusion pumps and did not want to forget my question again.

=========

Hi Mark.

      I am glad you are getting those infusion pumps fixed!  Ha.

      As for Matthew 2:3, we know why Herod was upset.  He was an extremely, murderously paranoid king.  Jerusalem was “troubled” only in the sense of being excited and mystified; a visit from foreigners wanting to find the king who had been born would have been an amazing event.  Herod had not yet done anything concerning the birth of a king that would have troubled the Jews; his killing of the innocents around Bethlehem came later.

      As for your comment about wondering how you would have done in that ancient situation, my father said there is a way you can tell:  Ask yourself, what am I doing with Jesus now?

     Thank you for the question.  Hope this answers it.

Pastor John     

 

 

 

Hi Pastor John, 

I just have a question about Kiriath Arba / Hebron.  In Joshua 14 we learn the town’s name was changed to Hebron. But some modern authors suggest they were separate cities. Do we know which is true?  Also I suppose if it’s the same town Abraham may have thus known the town to be called Kiriath Arba or something like it?  I guess we just don’t know, but it’s a curious detail I was wondering about.

Jenny

=========

Hi Jenny.

Good question, but your comment, “some modern authors suggest”, makes me think you are using commentaries, either online or in book form.  As you know, I warn my Old Testament students not to do that, but to just to know the Bible.  You asked me, “Which is true?”  My answer: The Bible is!  Also, I noticed that you spelled the word “Kiriath”, not “Kirjath”.  Would you mind telling me where you got that spelling?  It is not wrong; the word can be translated that way, but I just wondered which version of the Old Testament you are using  In our translation, we always used “Kirjath” not “Kiriath”.

To give you a fuller scriptural answer your question . . .

Kirjath- (or Kiriath-) is a Hebrew word which means “city of”.  And Arba was a man (a giant) who either founded the city or was famous and lived there.  Hence, “Kirjath-Arba” (the “Arba” should be capitalized), as in Joshua 14:15: “And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakim.”

Repeatedly, Jenny, and plainly, the Bible states that Kijath-Arba is Hebron: Gen. 23:2; 35:27; Josh. 15:13, 54; 20:7; 21:11; Judg. 1:10.  That being the case, why are you confused as to whether or not Kirjath-Arba is Hebron?  

Pleasse don’t let “modern scholars” confuse you.  By listening to them, you learn less of the Bible, not more.  That is why I caution my students to concentrate on getting to know the Bible very well – and learn to trust it – before branching out and listening to what modern scholars say about the Bible.  It is spiritually dangerous for students of the Old Testament to listen to them before learning the Bible well.

Your uncertainty about Hebron, in spite of what the Bible clearly and repeatedly says about it, is a case in point.  By listening to them, you have ended up knowing less, though the scholars would have their listeners think they are learning more.  Stay away from them.  You don’t know the Bible well enough yet to escape being confused by their erudite, unbelieving nonsense.

I hope that helps.

Pastor John

 

Granddaddy,

Concerning Mathew 19:3-9… please tell me you have an explanation for it, particularly verse 9.  That seems as plain as a field in Kansas…

JD3

=========

Hi there.  Thank you for the question!

Here is Matthew 19:3-9:

3. And the Pharisees came up to him, tempting him, and saying to him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

4. But he answered and said to them, “Haven’t you read that He who made them in the beginning ‘made them male and female’?

5. And then He said, ‘For this reason shall a man forsake his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one body.’

6. Therefore, they are no longer two, but one body.  So then, what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7. They said to him, “Why, then, did Moses command the husband to give her a certificate of separation, and divorce her?”

8. He said to them, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts, but in the beginning, it wasn’t like that.

9. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another woman is committing adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery.”

The key to understanding that portion of Scripture is in verse 6: “what GOD has joined together”.  What Jesus said in verse 9 applies only to that.   Sinners and backsliders marry all the time, and God had nothing to do with it.   Sometimes, it is a good thing for such a marriage to end.  Those people only went through a ceremony during which a man declared them to be married.  That does not make it so.  But if and when God puts a marriage together, what Jesus said in verse 9 applies – every time.

What a good thing it is for you to be asking such questions!   Thank you.

Granddaddy

 

 

 

Hey Pastor John,

Last night Alex and I read “Pillar #3: One Hope” in the Seven Pillars book.*  I have a question from the section titled, “We Must Do Good Works.”  In Revelation 20:13, it says, “And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one, according to their deeds.”

What exactly is John saying when he refers to the sea, or do we know? Is he saying the sea also holds souls of the ones lost?

==========

There is no reason to think that solid ground can hold dead souls but water cannot.  I think John is referring to people who have died at sea rather than on land.

==========

Also, are Death and Hades in reference to the same thing versus two different places?

==========

Death and Hades are spirits, not places.  That’s why in John’s vision, Death could ride a horse and Hades could follow him.

==========

We are really enjoying reading this book.  So many light bulb moments and puzzle pieces that fit together.  A few praise breaks along the way too!  

One of my favorite “aha” moments last night was Acts 16:32 when I read,  “And then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and all who were in his house.” They spoke the word of the Lord.  They didn’t read it!  So many times, I have seen people try and convince others that the Bible is the word of the Lord.  What Paul and Silas had was a living and breathing gospel.  I don’t remember that scripture ever sticking out to me the way it did this time reading it.  I hope I remember that scripture now, if ever in a conversation about that topic.

I think that is all the questions I had from that chapter, that I can remember at this time, anyway.

Bye for now!

Margo

* Going to Jesus.com – The Seven Pillars of the Gospel: The Unifying Bond of Peace

 

Hey John,

     Tonight, I was looking back through some passages from The Great Apostasy book (Going to Jesus.com – The Great Apostasy” How believers’ rejection of Paul’s gospel led to the formation of Christianity).

    In the second paragraph from the end of “The Tunnel” portion, beginning with “In A.D. 70,” you wrote that believers entered the tunnel a charismatic community with some ceremonial aspects, glorifying Moses and rejecting Paul. But they emerged from the tunnel a ceremonial community with some charismatic aspects, glorifying Paul and rejecting Moses.

     Please clarify this for me, as I thought they would now be rejecting Paul and glorifying Moses, because they became more of a ceremonial community with some charismatic aspects when emerging from the tunnel.  Thank you

Jim K.

===========

Hi Jim.

   Good question, Jim; thank you for sending it in.

    The NT record clearly shows that the body of Christ, as a whole, rejected Paul’s gospel, being convinced of their need to submit to circumcision, that is, to the law of Moses.  The references for that biblical fact are too many to mention, but Paul’s statement to Timothy, “All they [believers] in Asia have forsaken me” (2Tim. 1:!5) represents what was happening everywhere.  Part 5 of my book, The Jerusalem Council (Going to Jesus.com – The Jerusalem Council ), goes into great detail on that from NT books.

     In the second century, what we find in the documents which Christians have allowed to survive is an exaltation of Paul (but not the same gospel he preached) and a complete rejection of the law of Moses, and in some cases, virulent anti-Semitism.

     That is the historical record.  Anyone can look it up.  For examples of the anti-Semitism of some second-century leaders of Christians, one can go to The Apostate Fathers at GoingtoJesus.com (Going to Jesus.com – The Apostate Fathers).

     The fact that those second-century Apostates were still practicing rituals is really a different subject from the specific one I was discussing in The Great Apostasy book.  You are correct in saying that second century believers were still a ceremonial community with some charismatic elements, but the ceremonies they were practicing then were new and had nothing to do with Moses’ law.  In fact, those new ceremonies had – and still have – nothing to do with the real Jesus or Paul.  Christians made up those rituals to replace the ones from the law that they had stopped practicing.  God was not in it.

     I hope this explains the section on The Tunnel that you mentioned.  Thank you again for asking.

Pastor John

===========

   Jim’s question was perceptive and earnestly inquisitive, and I instantly empathized with him, as it seemed confusing to me, too.  

   Your answer really clarified that situation about Paul, his true doctrine, and the “Church’s” introduction of new rituals in place of the Law of Moses. 

   We’ve been so immersed in your books this past year that I need a drone’s view of them all, to truly see the history in chronological order.  A visual timeline would be helpful, I think.  Whew! 

Brad

===========

 Give me a white board and some markers, and we will do it!