“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (Daniel 9:25 kjv)
It should be clear that, in verse 25, the number of weeks called out as seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (total of 69), and the two historic events that bracket those shabuwa are linked, and because of the local context, we are able to determine that the first sixty-nine shabuwa are periods of seven years each. Now we move on to the final shabuwa.
In verse 27 we encounter week/shabuwa number 70, and we come to one of the most hotly debated eschatological verses in all of the Old Testament. Everyone knows enough about such debates that we need not go into any of that here. Instead, I will introduce a new possibility as to the meaning of this verse. Everyone should appreciate that. Right?
To make the introduction, I want to talk about playing cards. I don’t play poker. I don’t really know how, and I really don’t care to learn, but over the years, I have learned something about the possible hands, as well as something about the ranking of possible hands. I know for example that a full-house is two of one kind and three of another kind, and I know that a full-house beats two-pair. Is this correct? Well, not always.
You see, a full-house would normally beat two-pair because it is more likely for a player to get two-pair than for a player to get two of one kind and three of another kind…unless, I tell you that both of my pairs are the same card. If I have two-pair and both pairs are queens, then that beats a full-house. Of course, you will quickly say that it’s not two-pair, but rather four-of-a-kind. Okay, but we’ve all seen this scene in some movie or other.
Just the same, my point is made. If I say that I have two pair, you don’t know what my cards are until I say something like; aces and eights, dead-man’s hand. The word ‘pair’ is like the word ‘shabuwa. It has only QUANTITATIVE meaning, not QUALITATIVE meaning; we know how many, but we don’t know of what. The same thing goes for pairs.
We might say the same thing of dozens. I could tell you that I have to stop on the way home to get a couple of dozen. You don’t know what I’m getting. You only know how many. It could be eggs or it could be roses. In fact, my two dozens could be a dozen eggs for breakfast and a dozen roses for my lady. They don’t have to be two dozen of the same thing. To my knowledge, this principle has never been applied to Daniel’s seventy weeks, but it can be. All seventy weeks do not have to be periods of seven years.
Now for those who want to justify a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and the 70th week, the fact that Daniel 9:24-27 separates the 70 weeks into the first 69 and the final week becomes a justification of their theory, but maybe we should look at that differently. What if the break between the 69th and 70th weeks is to help us see that the 70th week is somehow different that the preceding 69 weeks? What if God made that separation because He wanted to help us notice that different events in the two blocks of time give a different context to verse 27 than He had written into verse 25? Is that possible?
Well, before we go too far here, we better make a point that the divisions of verses were not part of what Gabriel spoke to Daniel. Everything that Gabriel said was all part of one big explanation; no verse divisions. But, there is a distinction between the context of the 69 weeks and the context of the 70th week.
And, while we are looking at how Gabriel’s words were divided into verses, notice that there could easily be a further division within verse 27. From my perspective, I would divide that one verse into two parts with the division right after the word ‘cease’. There is a comma there now, and a conjunction (and), and the subject, though related, changes right there. After that, desolation and abomination become the new subjects, and a protracted period of time seems to be in view. [Consummation: completion, termination, full end]
Look at the events of the 70th week. In one, final week there is a covenant confirmed, and in the mid point of that final week an end is made to sacrifices and oblations. This, then, is the context of week number seventy. Nothing here indicates that that this final shabuwa has to be a seven-year long shabuwa.
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”.
Quite the contrary is true. How long would it take you to confirm a covenant? How long would it take you to command an end to sacrifices and offerings? If we say that this is a seven-year shabuwa, we must certainly use context to substantiate our claim. What we have instead in an interpretation that has been passed down from one generation of preachers to the next for a long time, without regard to context.
Summary: The final shabuwa of Daniel’s seventy shabuwa could be a shabuwa of days rather than a shabuwa of years. Nothing in the context needs seven years for accomplishment.
Monday, September 27, 2010
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter Seven
I am encouraged when I am able to see that the men who have prepared a Bible version have broken with tradition and have made a literal translation of a particular word, even though it doesn't read as well in that initially we don't know what they mean to say. In Daniel 9:24a, the NIV has done that, and you can see that we're not exactly comfortable with the different wording. That version has the wording of this passage as:
"He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven." (Daniel 9:24a)
To speak about a 'seven' doesn't work for us, does it? At least not until we investigate to find out what it is talking about, but 'seven' is a literal translation of the Hebrew word shabuwa in that verse. The men who provide that version decided we need to know that.
In the King James version, the translators claimed to have identified words that they had added to the original text in order to help our understanding, and they marked those added words by printing them in italics. Some other versions have done the same, but many version have not done so. In the Darby version, the translators show us the added words with italics. Here is how they render verse 27a.
"And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week" (Daniel 9:27a; Darby)
How many other versions have done that? None that I could find at the internet site I use: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=9&v=27&t=KJV#27 Not even the King James version shows that the word for has been added, but Young's Literal Version even goes it one better. Young's just doesn't add the word for in the first place. Young's version presents the line WITHOUT added words:
"And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week," (Daniel 9:27a; Young's)
Leaving OUT a word that was never intended to be IN this statement in the first place makes a big difference. Let's read it again:
"And he hath strengthened a covenant with many, one week,"
Can we see what it means without the added word for? And one week he hath strengthened a covenant with many.
With the added word for we have been led to believe in a covenant that will only last for one week. Without the added word we can see that the covenant gets strengthened DURING A WEEK. Beloved, THIS IS A BIG DEAL! But, is the word for actually part of the original text or not? Who is telling the truth?
You can see here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Tpdf/dan9.pdf that there is no Hebrew word in there that would translate as for. And, here: http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.comOldTestament.pdf you can see that, in the Greek Septuagint, there is nothing to justify the added word.
The word for is NOT supposed to be there. The covenant gets confirmed during one week. Anyone who studies this passage knows that verse 27 is talking about the final shabuwa of the seventy shabuwa, and that is the time period when we should look to see if there was a covenant was confirmed.
Summary: In the first line of Daniel 9:27, the word for has been added by those who have translated and produced most of our English versions. It is not supposed to be there, and its addition to the text has perverted the meaning of the original Hebrew texts.
"He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven." (Daniel 9:24a)
To speak about a 'seven' doesn't work for us, does it? At least not until we investigate to find out what it is talking about, but 'seven' is a literal translation of the Hebrew word shabuwa in that verse. The men who provide that version decided we need to know that.
In the King James version, the translators claimed to have identified words that they had added to the original text in order to help our understanding, and they marked those added words by printing them in italics. Some other versions have done the same, but many version have not done so. In the Darby version, the translators show us the added words with italics. Here is how they render verse 27a.
"And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week" (Daniel 9:27a; Darby)
How many other versions have done that? None that I could find at the internet site I use: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=9&v=27&t=KJV#27 Not even the King James version shows that the word for has been added, but Young's Literal Version even goes it one better. Young's just doesn't add the word for in the first place. Young's version presents the line WITHOUT added words:
"And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week," (Daniel 9:27a; Young's)
Leaving OUT a word that was never intended to be IN this statement in the first place makes a big difference. Let's read it again:
"And he hath strengthened a covenant with many, one week,"
Can we see what it means without the added word for? And one week he hath strengthened a covenant with many.
With the added word for we have been led to believe in a covenant that will only last for one week. Without the added word we can see that the covenant gets strengthened DURING A WEEK. Beloved, THIS IS A BIG DEAL! But, is the word for actually part of the original text or not? Who is telling the truth?
You can see here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Tpdf/dan9.pdf that there is no Hebrew word in there that would translate as for. And, here: http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.comOldTestament.pdf you can see that, in the Greek Septuagint, there is nothing to justify the added word.
The word for is NOT supposed to be there. The covenant gets confirmed during one week. Anyone who studies this passage knows that verse 27 is talking about the final shabuwa of the seventy shabuwa, and that is the time period when we should look to see if there was a covenant was confirmed.
Summary: In the first line of Daniel 9:27, the word for has been added by those who have translated and produced most of our English versions. It is not supposed to be there, and its addition to the text has perverted the meaning of the original Hebrew texts.
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter Six
Quoting the opening paragraphs of Chapter One:
Shabuwa: a period of seven (7 years, 7 days, 7 periods)
Whether we are reading about a period of 7 years, as we do in Genesis 29:27-28 or whether we are reading about a period of 7 days as we do in Leviticus 12:1-5, can only be determined by examining the local context. In order to know which is in view, we have to read the local context.
This prophecy begins in Daniel 9:24, and that is where we learn that the overall time period is comprised of Seventy shabuwa. The rest of verse 24 details what God intended to accomplish during those seventy shabuwa. We are not told in verse 24 which interpretation of shabuwa to use.
To take a stand on whether a particular shabuwa is seven years or seven days is strictly a matter of interpretation, so when we make that interpretation, we need to be sure that there is a basis for our interpretation. As we move from verse 24 to verse 25 we are given more information.
"Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven shabuwa, and sixty-two shabuwa: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.” (verse 25)
I have taken the liberty of substituting the Hebrew word shabuwa in place of the English word weeks. I have also highlighted the words from and until.
This verse speaks of shabuwa again, but this time, we find context to help us determine the intended use of that word here. Sixty-nine shabuwa are in view; a summation of seven shabuwa and sixty-two shabuwa. A beginning point and an ending point for the sixty-nine shabuwa is part of the context.
Verse 25 discusses a period of sixty-nine shabuwa and it gives us two historical markers that let us know what time period will elapse during those sixty-nine shabuwa. We have an advantage over Daniel because we can calculate the time from history. He couldn't go by history. The decree hadn't even happened yet, much less "Messiah the Prince".
It's too late to make a long story short. Many people have done calculations to show that Palm Sunday was exactly 483 prophetic years after Cyrus issued the edict allowing the Jews to return to their homes in Canaan. At this point, a simple division of 483 years by 96 shabuwa gives us an answer. The shabuwa of this verse are periods of seven years each.
Summary: The first 69 shabuwa of the 70 total shabuwa were periods of seven years each.
Shabuwa: a period of seven (7 years, 7 days, 7 periods)
Whether we are reading about a period of 7 years, as we do in Genesis 29:27-28 or whether we are reading about a period of 7 days as we do in Leviticus 12:1-5, can only be determined by examining the local context. In order to know which is in view, we have to read the local context.
This prophecy begins in Daniel 9:24, and that is where we learn that the overall time period is comprised of Seventy shabuwa. The rest of verse 24 details what God intended to accomplish during those seventy shabuwa. We are not told in verse 24 which interpretation of shabuwa to use.
To take a stand on whether a particular shabuwa is seven years or seven days is strictly a matter of interpretation, so when we make that interpretation, we need to be sure that there is a basis for our interpretation. As we move from verse 24 to verse 25 we are given more information.
"Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven shabuwa, and sixty-two shabuwa: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.” (verse 25)
I have taken the liberty of substituting the Hebrew word shabuwa in place of the English word weeks. I have also highlighted the words from and until.
This verse speaks of shabuwa again, but this time, we find context to help us determine the intended use of that word here. Sixty-nine shabuwa are in view; a summation of seven shabuwa and sixty-two shabuwa. A beginning point and an ending point for the sixty-nine shabuwa is part of the context.
Verse 25 discusses a period of sixty-nine shabuwa and it gives us two historical markers that let us know what time period will elapse during those sixty-nine shabuwa. We have an advantage over Daniel because we can calculate the time from history. He couldn't go by history. The decree hadn't even happened yet, much less "Messiah the Prince".
It's too late to make a long story short. Many people have done calculations to show that Palm Sunday was exactly 483 prophetic years after Cyrus issued the edict allowing the Jews to return to their homes in Canaan. At this point, a simple division of 483 years by 96 shabuwa gives us an answer. The shabuwa of this verse are periods of seven years each.
Summary: The first 69 shabuwa of the 70 total shabuwa were periods of seven years each.
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter Five
"Seventy shabuwa are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
- to finish the transgression, and
- to make an end of sins, and
- to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
- to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
- to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
- to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)
In segments one through four of this series we have examined the first three things that God was going to accomplish during the seventy shabuwa of this prophecy. I personally am in agreement with many preachers and teachers that these three items on the list were accomplished at the cross of Christ, but I am also in agreement with Gabriel/Daniel 9:24 that these three things would be accomplished DURING the Seventy shabuwa, and not at some point outside of that time-frame.
Therefore, in this segment we are going to examine the probability of there being an unannounced gap of 2,000+ years between the 69th and the 70th shabuwa.
The first point to consider is that there is no mention of any gap. Proponents of THIS gap theory are quick to denounce a similar gap theory postulated to have occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as a way to reconcile the Biblical seven-day creation period and today's understanding of the age of our planet. Neither gap is Biblical.
I asked a question of about ten men, pastors and pastor types. I wanted to know their understanding of when the 69th shabuwa ended. Without exception the answer was; on the day of the triumphal entry of Yeshua into Jerusalem. The day we read about in Matthew 21, Mark 11 and John 12. Typically, we call that day, Palm Sunday. That day saw the end of the 69th shabuwa of Daniel 9:24.
Now I ask you a question. When was Yeshua crucified? When was the cross?
Eight days following Yeshua's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, before the sun came up on the first day of the week (Sunday), the women went to the tomb where Yeshua's body had been placed, and they found it empty. Resurrection morning is what we call that day. It was the Sunday morning following Palm Sunday. Yeshua of Nazareth was crucified sometime during that week.
So what? I'm so glad you ask these questions.
The 69th shabuwa ended on Palm Sunday, so Yeshua was not crucified during the first 69 shabuwa, so:
IF the 70th shabuwa is yet to happen in our future, and
IF there is a 2,000+ year gap between the 69th and the 70th shabuwa,
and since we know He has already gone to the cross...
THEN the atonement for iniquity at the cross will not have happened during ANY OF THE SEVENTY SHABUWA even though Gabriel said that it would happen during the SEVENTY SHABUWA.
This analysis rests on a premise that the 69th shabuwa ended on Palm Sunday, which has been validated by many, and you can find it all over the net, but that's not good enough to guarantee that the cross of Christ happened after the 69th shabuwa. To obtain that guarantee, we go to scripture, and we find that guarantee in Daniel 9:26, part of the overall Seventy Weeks prophecy. The first phrase of that verse clearly states:
"And AFTER threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:" (Daniel 9:26a)
Any questions? Messiah was to be "cut off" AFTER the 62 shabuwa, which followed the first 7 shabuwa, for a total of 96 shabuwa. Yeshua went to the cross sometime AFTER the end of the 69th shabuwa. Whether or not that day was Palm Sunday is irrelevant at this point.
Summary: One of the things that God was going to accomplish during the seventy shabuwa was to make reconciliation for iniquity, and that happened when Messiah was cut off; it happened at the cross of Christ, and that happened AFTER THE 69th SHABUWA, not DURING any of those 69.
Summary: If a 2,000+ year gap happened after the end of the 69th shabuwa, then item number three, the reconciliation for iniquity, the cross, the atonement didn't happen during the 70 shabuwa even though Gabriel prophesied that it would.
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter Four
"Seventy shabuwa are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
- to finish the transgression, and
- to make an end of sins, and
- to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
- to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
- to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
- to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)
In this segment we will examine the second item on the above list:
"to make an end of sins"
First; we will see that this is NOT what ALL of our Bibles say.
"to make an end of sins" King James Version (KJV)
"to make an end of sins" New King James Version (NKJV)
"to put an end to sin" New International Version (NIV)
"to put an end to sin" English Standard Version (ESV)
"to make an end of sin" New American Standard (NASB)
"to put an end to sin" Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"to make an end of sins" American Standard Version (ASV)
"to seal up sins" Young's Literal Version (YNG)
"to make an end of sins" John Darby Version (DBY)
"to make an end of sins" Webster's Version (WEB)
"to make an end of sins" Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
There are many who believe and teach that items 1, 2 and 3 on the list were accomplished at the cross. I would agree with them, but typically, their position on item #2 is based on an interpretation of the phrase, and I can agree with that as well. At the cross, Yeshua brought an end to the dominion sin has over us (Romans 6:14).
I would like to point out the particulars of the Hebrew word translated here as 'sins', in order to further substantiate the fact that Yeshua fulfilled item #2 at the cross. I believe that this logic constitutes yet another proof of that fact, in addition to the common interpretation.
God gave instructions through Moses concerning all the facets of the Law. Among the facets of the Law of Moses were many things that would be ended when the Lamb of God fulfilled them at the cross. All of the ordinances that had to do with the death of an animal fall into that category. Here is an example of one of them.
"to make an end of sins"
First; we will see that this is NOT what ALL of our Bibles say.
"to make an end of sins" King James Version (KJV)
"to make an end of sins" New King James Version (NKJV)
"to put an end to sin" New International Version (NIV)
"to put an end to sin" English Standard Version (ESV)
"to make an end of sin" New American Standard (NASB)
"to put an end to sin" Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"to make an end of sins" American Standard Version (ASV)
"to seal up sins" Young's Literal Version (YNG)
"to make an end of sins" John Darby Version (DBY)
"to make an end of sins" Webster's Version (WEB)
"to make an end of sins" Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
There are many who believe and teach that items 1, 2 and 3 on the list were accomplished at the cross. I would agree with them, but typically, their position on item #2 is based on an interpretation of the phrase, and I can agree with that as well. At the cross, Yeshua brought an end to the dominion sin has over us (Romans 6:14).
I would like to point out the particulars of the Hebrew word translated here as 'sins', in order to further substantiate the fact that Yeshua fulfilled item #2 at the cross. I believe that this logic constitutes yet another proof of that fact, in addition to the common interpretation.
God gave instructions through Moses concerning all the facets of the Law. Among the facets of the Law of Moses were many things that would be ended when the Lamb of God fulfilled them at the cross. All of the ordinances that had to do with the death of an animal fall into that category. Here is an example of one of them.
"And thou shalt offer every day a bullock a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it." (Exodus 29:36)
The bullock that was offered every day as sin offering was a type of the offering for sin that the coming Christ would be. The sin offering was a picture of the atonement which would be made by God in Christ.
[an aside: notice what is anointed here and remember it for later.]
Returning now to our phrase "to make an end of sins" we find that the Hebrew word is translated as 'sins' 182 times. BUT THAT SAME WORD is also translated as 'sin offering' 116 times. Well, so what?
I'm so glad you asked.
If the Hebrew word (#2403) had been translated in Daniel 9:24 as 'sin offering' instead of as 'sin', we might read our phrase as; "to make an end of the sin offering". Interestingly enough, at the cross of Christ, the commandment to make an offering for sin, a sin offering, was fulfilled. Christ was the final sin offering. (compare Hebrews 10:8, 18) That's why believers in Yeshua today don't make bloody offerings. Yeshua is our sin offering.
Now, perhaps the translators all got it right when they translated the Hebrew word as 'sin', but I do find it interesting that the 'sin offering' was done away with, fulfilled at the cross of Christ.
Summary: One of the things that God was going to accomplish during the Seventy shabuwa was to put an end to the 'sin offering' by fulfilling the 'sin offering' in Christ.
Returning now to our phrase "to make an end of sins" we find that the Hebrew word is translated as 'sins' 182 times. BUT THAT SAME WORD is also translated as 'sin offering' 116 times. Well, so what?
I'm so glad you asked.
If the Hebrew word (#2403) had been translated in Daniel 9:24 as 'sin offering' instead of as 'sin', we might read our phrase as; "to make an end of the sin offering". Interestingly enough, at the cross of Christ, the commandment to make an offering for sin, a sin offering, was fulfilled. Christ was the final sin offering. (compare Hebrews 10:8, 18) That's why believers in Yeshua today don't make bloody offerings. Yeshua is our sin offering.
Now, perhaps the translators all got it right when they translated the Hebrew word as 'sin', but I do find it interesting that the 'sin offering' was done away with, fulfilled at the cross of Christ.
Summary: One of the things that God was going to accomplish during the Seventy shabuwa was to put an end to the 'sin offering' by fulfilling the 'sin offering' in Christ.
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter Three
"Seventy shabuwa are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
- to finish the transgression, and
- to make an end of sins, and
- to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
- to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
- to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
- to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)
In this segment we will examine the first item on the above list:
"to finish the transgression"
First; we will see that this is NOT what ALL of our Bibles say.
"to finish the transgression" King James Version (KJV)
"To finish the transgression" New King James Version (NKJV)
"to finish* transgression" New International Version (NIV)
"to finish the transgression"
First; we will see that this is NOT what ALL of our Bibles say.
"to finish the transgression" King James Version (KJV)
"To finish the transgression" New King James Version (NKJV)
"to finish* transgression" New International Version (NIV)
"to finish the transgression" English Standard Version (ESV)
"to finish the transgression" New American Standard (NASB)
"to finish the transgression" Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"to finish transgression" American Standard Version (ASV)
"to shut up the transgression" Young's Literal Version (YNG)
"to close the transgression" John Darby Version (DBY)
"to finish the transgression" Webster's Version (WEB)
"to finish disobedience" Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
I'm only interested in one word here. Transgression is understood.
Today, the word 'finish' is typically understood to mean in the way that you can see the Darby version translates it; close, or in the way you see Young's Literal version translates it shut up. It demonstrates how the meanings of words can change with time. That being the case here, let's turn to the original language, Hebrew.
The Biblical Usage of the Hebrew word (#3607) kala, is given in the Strong's Concordance as: to restrict, restrain, withhold, shut up, keep back, refrain, forbid. The primary Biblical usage of this word is the one that is first on this list: to restrict. The word is only used 18 times in the entire Old Testament. That's not a lot.
"to finish the transgression" New American Standard (NASB)
"to finish the transgression" Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"to finish transgression" American Standard Version (ASV)
"to shut up the transgression" Young's Literal Version (YNG)
"to close the transgression" John Darby Version (DBY)
"to finish the transgression" Webster's Version (WEB)
"to finish disobedience" Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
I'm only interested in one word here. Transgression is understood.
Today, the word 'finish' is typically understood to mean in the way that you can see the Darby version translates it; close, or in the way you see Young's Literal version translates it shut up. It demonstrates how the meanings of words can change with time. That being the case here, let's turn to the original language, Hebrew.
The Biblical Usage of the Hebrew word (#3607) kala, is given in the Strong's Concordance as: to restrict, restrain, withhold, shut up, keep back, refrain, forbid. The primary Biblical usage of this word is the one that is first on this list: to restrict. The word is only used 18 times in the entire Old Testament. That's not a lot.
Two other Hebrew words are much more commonly used to convey the idea we get when we read the word finish in the Old Testament. In Genesis 6:16 we find one of them, a word that is translated as finish; a Hebrew word (#3615) that occurs 206 times in the Bible. In Zechariah 4:9 we find the other one (#1214). It occurs 16 times.
The meanings of these two words convey the idea of completion and termination, whereas the Hebrew word in Daniel 9:24 conveys the idea of containment and restraint. It is more than possible, it is probable that the intended meaning of the phrase; to finish the transgression' is to hold back or restrain sin. What happens if we read the first item on the list of what God was going to accomplish, keeping in mind that restraint or containment is in view? We get: "to hold back the transgression" or "to restrain the transgression"
The meanings of these two words convey the idea of completion and termination, whereas the Hebrew word in Daniel 9:24 conveys the idea of containment and restraint. It is more than possible, it is probable that the intended meaning of the phrase; to finish the transgression' is to hold back or restrain sin. What happens if we read the first item on the list of what God was going to accomplish, keeping in mind that restraint or containment is in view? We get: "to hold back the transgression" or "to restrain the transgression"
This restraint of transgression happened at the cross of Christ.
Now, just so you know. This is not a new thought, nor is it my own. If you doubt what I have written in this segment, and if you want the opinion of someone who has been trained in a seminary, check with your pastor. This is the position taken by many great teachers.
Summary: One of the things that God was going to accomplish during the Seventy
Now, just so you know. This is not a new thought, nor is it my own. If you doubt what I have written in this segment, and if you want the opinion of someone who has been trained in a seminary, check with your pastor. This is the position taken by many great teachers.
Summary: One of the things that God was going to accomplish during the Seventy
shabuwa was the restraint of sin.
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter Two
"Seventy shabuwa are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
1. to finish the transgression, and
2. to make an end of sins, and
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
5. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
6. to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)
In this segment we will examine the third item on the above list:
"to make reconciliation for iniquity"
First; we will see that this is NOT what ALL of our Bibles say.
"to make reconciliation for iniquity" King James Version (KJV)
"to make reconciliation for iniquity" New King James Version (NKJV)
"to atone for wickedness" New International Version (NIV)
"to atone for iniquity" English Standard Version (ESV)
"to make atonement for iniquity" New American Standard (NASB)
"to atone for iniquity" Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"to make reconciliation for iniquity" American Standard Version (ASV)
"to cover iniquity" Young's Literal Version (YNG)
"to make expiation for iniquity" John Darby Version (DBY)
"to make reconciliation for iniquity" Webster's Version (WEB)
"to make reconciliation for iniquity" Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
There may be valid reasons why ALL of our Bibles don't read the same, but for this writing we will concentrate on the Hebrew words, from which ALL of the above texts were derived. Two words will be considered. The word translated as iniquity in most of the versions, and the word translated as reconciliation, atonement and expiation in these same versions.
Iniquity: With a handful of exceptions, the Hebrew word translated here is almost always translated as 'iniquity'. (220 out of 230 times, 95%) It is sin, wickedness, perversity, depravity and anything else that has that same connotation. This concludes our examination of 'iniquity'.
Reconciliation: Translated as 'atonement' 70% of the times it occurs, this word is translated elsewhere in the KJV as purge away, reconcile, forgive, pacify and of course reconciliation.
Gesenius's Lexicon defines it: "To cover, to cover over, to overspread."
The meaning here is clear enough; It is the word translated in Leviticus as 'atonement'.
"And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." (Leviticus 1:4)
When Gabriel said "to make reconciliation for iniquity" he was speaking about one place, one time and about one of God's accomplishments. He was talking about the cross of Christ. No other interpretation is possible.
Summary: One of the things that God was going to accomplish during the seventy shabuwa was the atonement
for sin by Christ at the cross. The crucifixion/atonement happened during the seventy shabuwa.
SEVENTY WEEKS - Chapter One
Shabuwa: a period of seven (7 years, 7 days, 7 months, 7 periods)
Whether we are reading about a period of 7 years, as we do in Genesis 29:27-28, or about a period of 7 days as we do in Leviticus 12:5, can only be determined by examining the local context. In order to know which is in view, we have to read the local context. In this update of the original post, I will insert the text of each of these passages for your consideration.
Can you imagine a woman being considered 'unclean' for 14 years because her baby is a girl? Of course not, and as a result, we understand that the Hebrew word shabuwa in this verse means a period of seven days, not a period of seven years.
In this verse we are actually told that the shabuwa in view is a seven-year period.
From these two passages we have now learned that the Hebrew word shabuwa can mean either a period of seven years or a period of seven days, depending on the local context.
It is commonly understood that, of the seventy weeks (shabuwa) of Daniel's ninth chapter; sixty nine weeks elapsed/concluded on the day of the triumphal entry of Yeshua (Jesus) into the city of Jerusalem. That is the day that He was hailed as the Messiah of Israel (Daniel 9:25). That day is usually referred to as Palm Sunday, and for convenience, that is what I will call it here.
The 70 periods of seven began with the edict made by the Persian King Cyrus commanding the Israelites to leave Babylon and return to their homes in the land of Canaan. Israel had been taken into captivity 70 years earlier when King Nebuchadnezzar sat on the throne of the empire.
At the beginning of chapter nine, Daniel informs us that he learned from the book of Jeremiah that the captivity of Israel was only supposed to last for a total of 70 years. He told the king of Babylon, and the king of Babylon made the decree that allowed Israel to return home.
I suspect that it helped a lot that Daniel was able to show the king a verse in the prophecy of Isaiah where he (Cyrus) was going to be used by the God of Israel to accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 45). It's a good thing that Daniel had been studying the Torah. And so the decree was issued. Israel was free to go.
Our specific interest will be in is the last four verses of the ninth chapter of Daniel, verse 24 through verse 27. In the last four verses of the chapter, God, through Gabriel told Daniel what He (God) was going to accomplish during the next SEVENTY SHABUWA. These accomplishments are listed in those four verses; the first six are in verse 24. We will consider them in great detail, one at a time.
Summary: God was going to accomplish seven things over the period of seventy shabuwa that would begin when the Israelites were set free from Babylon.
Whether we are reading about a period of 7 years, as we do in Genesis 29:27-28, or about a period of 7 days as we do in Leviticus 12:5, can only be determined by examining the local context. In order to know which is in view, we have to read the local context. In this update of the original post, I will insert the text of each of these passages for your consideration.
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks,
as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her
purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her
purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
Can you imagine a woman being considered 'unclean' for 14 years because her baby is a girl? Of course not, and as a result, we understand that the Hebrew word shabuwa in this verse means a period of seven days, not a period of seven years.
"Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service
which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years."
(Genesis 29:27)
which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years."
(Genesis 29:27)
In this verse we are actually told that the shabuwa in view is a seven-year period.
From these two passages we have now learned that the Hebrew word shabuwa can mean either a period of seven years or a period of seven days, depending on the local context.
It is commonly understood that, of the seventy weeks (shabuwa) of Daniel's ninth chapter; sixty nine weeks elapsed/concluded on the day of the triumphal entry of Yeshua (Jesus) into the city of Jerusalem. That is the day that He was hailed as the Messiah of Israel (Daniel 9:25). That day is usually referred to as Palm Sunday, and for convenience, that is what I will call it here.
The 70 periods of seven began with the edict made by the Persian King Cyrus commanding the Israelites to leave Babylon and return to their homes in the land of Canaan. Israel had been taken into captivity 70 years earlier when King Nebuchadnezzar sat on the throne of the empire.
At the beginning of chapter nine, Daniel informs us that he learned from the book of Jeremiah that the captivity of Israel was only supposed to last for a total of 70 years. He told the king of Babylon, and the king of Babylon made the decree that allowed Israel to return home.
I suspect that it helped a lot that Daniel was able to show the king a verse in the prophecy of Isaiah where he (Cyrus) was going to be used by the God of Israel to accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 45). It's a good thing that Daniel had been studying the Torah. And so the decree was issued. Israel was free to go.
Our specific interest will be in is the last four verses of the ninth chapter of Daniel, verse 24 through verse 27. In the last four verses of the chapter, God, through Gabriel told Daniel what He (God) was going to accomplish during the next SEVENTY SHABUWA. These accomplishments are listed in those four verses; the first six are in verse 24. We will consider them in great detail, one at a time.
Summary: God was going to accomplish seven things over the period of seventy shabuwa that would begin when the Israelites were set free from Babylon.
Monday, June 14, 2010
YAHWEH
Click here to read Genesis 18:1-15
The first verse begins: "And the LORD appeared unto..."
If our English translators had translated this passage literally, it would have read as it does in the Hebrew: "And Yahweh appeared unto..."
This is just one of almost 7,000 places where the translators elected to alter the text for us by inserting the two words; "the LORD" instead of transliterating the name that is there in the Hebrew version. Be that as it may, the point to be seen in verse one is that it was Yahweh who appeared to Abraham that day. We can be sure that it was Yahweh because the text includes his actual name in several other places (v13, v14, v17, v19 twice, v20, v22, v26 and v33).
It was Yahweh who appeared to, visited with, sat by, ate with, and blessed Abraham. It was Yahweh who manifested himself in a physical way. It was Yahweh's mouth that moved when Abraham heard him speak. It was Yahweh who heard Sarah laugh within herself. It was Yahweh who promised motherhood to Sarah.
I suspect that many Christians would jump off to some mystical, Catholic lingo of how this was a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the nebulous trinity. Can't we just look at the text instead? Yahweh appeared.
Yahweh appeared, but who is Yahweh?
One of the ways that scripture defines Yahweh can be found in the first three verses of Exodus, chapter six. In that encounter with Moses, Yahweh proclaims his own name, and at the same time tells Moses (and us) that He is "God Almighty" (v3). Yahweh doesn't say that He is the second person, or the first person of the Catholic trinity. Instead, He simply identifies himself as God Almighty, whose name is Yahweh.
My daughter recently pointed me to another delightful passage of scripture; Isaiah 63:16, in which Isaiah calls Yahweh, 'Father'. Take a minute to examine the concordance included in the above link, just to see the actual words in the Hebrew. Isaiah tells us that Yahweh is the Father.
The significance of this passage cannot be overstated. Yahweh is the Father. Yahweh appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18. The Father appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18. The Father took a physical form that Abraham could SEE with his own eyes. This is consistent with scripture as well, in that there is only one God.
This was not the Son of God. The Son of God did not appear to Abraham, nor did the Son of God wrestle with Jacob. This was not some mystical, 'pre-incarnate' mumbo-jumbo. Nor does scripture call this manifestation 'the angel of the Lord'. Yahweh simply came to visit his creation in a form they could see. He created that physical manifestation on the spot, specifically for that encounter.
Consider John 14:7-11 Philip asked to see the Father, and the Father answered;
"Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?"
The Father was there in front of Philip, in yet another physical manifestation, but this physical manifestation was distinct from what we have looked at in the encounters of Abraham and Jacob. This physical manifestation was created in a much different way from those of Genesis 18 and 32. This physical manifestation of the FATHER had been created through physical birth into the human race. That is why this physical manifestation was called the SON.
When Yahweh visited Abraham, He didn't abandon his management of the rest of his creation. As He sat under the tree with Abraham, and while He wrestled with Jacob, Yahweh was still very much present throughout His universe. And, while Yahweh manifested himself in the Son for some 33 years on Earth, He was still very much present throughout His universe. But, there were some differences between this SON manifestation of the Father and those we find in Genesis.
The first verse begins: "And the LORD appeared unto..."
If our English translators had translated this passage literally, it would have read as it does in the Hebrew: "And Yahweh appeared unto..."
This is just one of almost 7,000 places where the translators elected to alter the text for us by inserting the two words; "the LORD" instead of transliterating the name that is there in the Hebrew version. Be that as it may, the point to be seen in verse one is that it was Yahweh who appeared to Abraham that day. We can be sure that it was Yahweh because the text includes his actual name in several other places (v13, v14, v17, v19 twice, v20, v22, v26 and v33).
It was Yahweh who appeared to, visited with, sat by, ate with, and blessed Abraham. It was Yahweh who manifested himself in a physical way. It was Yahweh's mouth that moved when Abraham heard him speak. It was Yahweh who heard Sarah laugh within herself. It was Yahweh who promised motherhood to Sarah.
I suspect that many Christians would jump off to some mystical, Catholic lingo of how this was a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the nebulous trinity. Can't we just look at the text instead? Yahweh appeared.
Yahweh appeared, but who is Yahweh?
One of the ways that scripture defines Yahweh can be found in the first three verses of Exodus, chapter six. In that encounter with Moses, Yahweh proclaims his own name, and at the same time tells Moses (and us) that He is "God Almighty" (v3). Yahweh doesn't say that He is the second person, or the first person of the Catholic trinity. Instead, He simply identifies himself as God Almighty, whose name is Yahweh.
My daughter recently pointed me to another delightful passage of scripture; Isaiah 63:16, in which Isaiah calls Yahweh, 'Father'. Take a minute to examine the concordance included in the above link, just to see the actual words in the Hebrew. Isaiah tells us that Yahweh is the Father.
The significance of this passage cannot be overstated. Yahweh is the Father. Yahweh appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18. The Father appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18. The Father took a physical form that Abraham could SEE with his own eyes. This is consistent with scripture as well, in that there is only one God.
This was not the Son of God. The Son of God did not appear to Abraham, nor did the Son of God wrestle with Jacob. This was not some mystical, 'pre-incarnate' mumbo-jumbo. Nor does scripture call this manifestation 'the angel of the Lord'. Yahweh simply came to visit his creation in a form they could see. He created that physical manifestation on the spot, specifically for that encounter.
Consider John 14:7-11 Philip asked to see the Father, and the Father answered;
"Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?"
The Father was there in front of Philip, in yet another physical manifestation, but this physical manifestation was distinct from what we have looked at in the encounters of Abraham and Jacob. This physical manifestation was created in a much different way from those of Genesis 18 and 32. This physical manifestation of the FATHER had been created through physical birth into the human race. That is why this physical manifestation was called the SON.
When Yahweh visited Abraham, He didn't abandon his management of the rest of his creation. As He sat under the tree with Abraham, and while He wrestled with Jacob, Yahweh was still very much present throughout His universe. And, while Yahweh manifested himself in the Son for some 33 years on Earth, He was still very much present throughout His universe. But, there were some differences between this SON manifestation of the Father and those we find in Genesis.
Monday, May 24, 2010
WHAT'S HIS NAME
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end
of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end
of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Hopefully we all know the name of the Son. His name is given in the English Bibles as Jesus. In the Hebrew rendering of the New Testament, we read that his name is Yeshua. The Hebrew Names Version of the New Testament has the text in English, but carries the various names of the characters in the English rendering of the Hebrew. Here is how Matthew 1:21 reads in that version.
"She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua,
for it is he who shall save his people from their sins."
for it is he who shall save his people from their sins."
Christians have become familiar with the so called 'great commission' given by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-19. We use it to claim that Jesus told us to be missionaries. We don't normally include verse 20 when we quote the passage, even though that verse is part of what Jesus said. I wonder if we ever think about what the entire passage says? That's a subject for another writing, but let's do consider what Jesus said in verse 19.
"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Do we baptize people in the name of Jesus? The person doing the baptizing usually ends what he has to say by saying: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:". Where was Jesus' name in all of that? Shouldn't we expect to hear something more like; 'I baptize you in the name of Jesus'? There is a scripture supporting that idea.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
An answer might be that we say exactly what Matthew 21:19 says we should say, and perhaps that is as it should be, but then, I would have to ask if I can use that same logic in the application of Jesus' words in John 14:14?
"If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it."
Should we close our prayers by saying something: "in my name, Amen"? Of course not. Look how Peter used the actual name when he pronounced a blessing of health upon the lame man at the gate of the temple (Acts 3:6).
"Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."
What did Jesus mean when He told us to baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Again, we know the name of the Son, but
What is the name of the Father?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost?
Let me answer with two statements.
1) We are not given separate names for 'the Father' and the 'Holy Ghost'.
2) Acts 4:12
That being said, let me ask a foundational question: How many Gods are there?
The correct answer is: Only one. (Isaiah 43:10-12, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:5-7, Isaiah 46:9)
Another question: Is Jesus, God?
The correct answer is: Yes.
Next question: What is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The correct answer is: Jesus.
I propose that we take Peter's example and use the actual name of God, Jesus when we call on Him and when we baptize people.
Since there is only one God, His name is Jesus. Notice what Jesus said about us praying.
"These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time
will come, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but
I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask
in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father
for you: For the Father himself loves you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again,
I leave the world, and go to the Father." (John 16:25-28)
will come, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but
I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask
in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father
for you: For the Father himself loves you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again,
I leave the world, and go to the Father." (John 16:25-28)
Previously, Jesus had told them that He would pray to the Father on their behalf, and that the Father would grant the request. Here, Jesus says that things will be different after He departs. He will no longer be praying to the Father for them, but they will be praying to the Father "in his name".
What does "in his name" mean? Does it mean that we're supposed to conclude our prayers with words like; "in the name of Jesus" or "in your name"? That's what we have been taught to say.
John 16:28 above says that Jesus came forth 'from' the Father, and will return 'to' the Father. The language presents a somewhat 'side-by-side' image of Father and Son. In verses 27-28, Jesus is trying to explain why the situation will change after his departure. He tells his disciples:
"For the Father himself loves you, because ye have loved me,
and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."
and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."
It's almost like we can see Jesus coming away from God; departing from His side. I've highlighted the word from for a reason. We need to look at the original language there. If you click on this link you will see Strong's presentation on that word. Notice the usage numbers.
AV — of 51, with 42, from 24, by ... side 15, at 12, than 11, misc 45
This word can mean either from or of. The problem with it being translated as from in these verses is that it conveys the idea of Jesus being at the side of the Father, and that can confuse the casual reader. The Father and the Son are not two separate beings that can stand side-by-side. They are one and the same being; there is only one God. Take a look at this same passage with the word translated as of rather than as from, and remember, that to the Jewish ear, there is no distinction. It is simply the Greek word; para.
"For the Father himself loves you, because ye have loved me,
and have believed that I came out of God. I came forth
of the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."
and have believed that I came out of God. I came forth
of the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."
The Greek word para is translated as of 51 times in scripture, as compared with being translated only 24 times as from. The numbers don't mean everything, but they may indicate something. However, the most important thing to remember is that, to the original writer, it was simply the word para; it was that translators who decided that it would say from.
Now back to Jesus' explanation to his disciples. He told them that once He returned to the Father, He would no longer pray to the Father for them, but that they would pray to the Father directly, "IN HIS NAME" (the name of Jesus). His words indicate that there is significance to His Name.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
IMPUTED
When you think back over the past month, was there a time when you transgressed one of God's commandments? He does have laws you know. Many people believe that God's laws don't apply to them. No. I'm not talking about the general public; I'm talking about Christians who don't believe that God's laws apply to them. For some, the favorite quotation from the New Testament is Romans 6:14:
So, I ask again; did you transgress one of God's commandments during the last month? How about in the last week? What about yesterday? What about this morning?
Perhaps I should rephrase the question; did you steal anything this week; a pencil or pen or some paper from the office? Did you look at a person other than your spouse and lust after that person? Did you get really angry at someone; angry enough to meet the qualifications of Matthew 5:22? Any of these would be a transgression of God's commandments. Do these commandments not apply to you?
Consider a word: 'Impute'.
Most of us are probably only familiar with this word because we have read it in scripture. Paul used it several times in the fourth chapter of Romans. Perhaps the most familiar sentence containing this word is Romans 4:22; "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." The context shows Abraham believing God, and righteousness being 'imputed' to him as a result of that trust. This verse in Romans is actually a reference to Genesis 15:6.
Here in Genesis we see that Abraham was counted righteous by God. Was it because Abraham did some great deed of righteousness? Was it because Abraham wasn't a liar? No. Abraham was a liar. Was it because Abraham was faithful to his wife? No. Abraham fathered a son by his wife's Egyptian slave girl. God didn't count Abraham righteous for any of these reasons. God counted Abraham righteous because Abraham trusted Him.
God is a bookkeeper. In the day of judgment, the books will be opened. God keeps books; He keeps accounts on each of us, and what God did in the case of Abraham was to make an adjustment to the books. God put "righteousness" on the page in His books where Abraham's name was. God juggled the books. He imputed righteousness to Abraham.
But, we read in another passage of Romans chapter four;
Those are the words of verse eight, and they tell us that God can exercise the option to NOT impute sin to someone. What we are seeing here and in verse 22 is that either righteousness or sin can be placed on our sheet in God's books at God's will. In the case of verse eight, we see that even if a man sins, God can elect to not enter that sin into His books.
Question: Is God just whimsical about this sort of thing, or what?
Of course, that answer to that question is that God is not whimsical, and that He uses a specific criterion in 'imputing' both sin and righteousness in His books. The point that we need to see in connection with this process is that God doesn't blink when He makes his entries in the books. He doesn't break His own rules, and He doesn't eliminate them either. His commandments are still very much in place.
Notice that God can elect to not impute sin to someone. That necessarily means that the person in view here sinned; and that means that the person had to transgress God's commandments.
The religious leaders of Jesus' day claimed that He was trying to do away with the Law. Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to eliminate the Law.
The Law is still in place, defining what God expects from His created beings, but God can exercise His option to NOT impute sin when His commandments are transgressed, and blessed is that man to whom God will not impute sin when transgressions occur. The point to remember is that God isn't whimsical about it, and He follows a long established criteria for doing so.
I trust that I am not the only one who, at one time or other has read scripture and been confused by the words. For a long time, I had trouble reconciling these two verses:
I know that I fully believe that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Christ; therefore, according to scripture, I am born of God. And yet, I know myself. I know my nature. I know I transgress God's commandments. I do not doubt one bit that I am born of God; so how can 1st John 3:9 be true?
The answer is that God elects to NOT impute sin to my account when I transgress His commandments. His criteria is that I am born of Him, and this is where we return and again consider the concept of God 'imputing' or 'not imputing' sin.
We have seen from Romans 4:22 that God can impute righteousness based upon whatever criteria He elects to use. Similarly, we have learned from Romans 4:8 that God can choose to NOT impute sin to the transgressor. We also noted herein that 'impute' is an accounting term. As we examine this concept of 'imputation', it may serve us well to think of sins as 'debits' and righteousness as 'credits' on the ledger sheet.
Recognition of God's plan for our salvation is all important. He has established his plan, and only those who follow his plan will be saved. His plan has provided for anyone and everyone to be saved who will follow his plan. The plan was demonstrated by the Old Testament 'scapegoat' imagery. It allows God to impute any particular sin to the scapegoat's ledger sheet, but the condition that has to be met is that the sinner must believe in the scapegoat.
Jesus is the scapegoat. Anyone who desires to have their sins wiped from their ledger sheet, must simply believe that Jesus was provided by God to be the punished for sins. When I trust God on that matter; when I believe that Jesus was who He said He was; when I trust him to have taken the punishment for my sins; God imputes my sins to Jesus' ledger sheet. God counts my sins against Jesus' ledger sheet, and since Jesus paid for all sins, the matter is closed. I walk away scot free.
God didn't just let me off the hook for my sin. He just changed the recipient of the punishment. God didn't do away with the law. His law is eternal. Even Jesus didn't destroy the law, much less any of the apostles of the New Testament time period. God's law still applies to me, but when I transgress God's law, He imputes what should have been my sin to the ledger sheet of Jesus. He doesn't even see me as sinning. This is how our two verses of scripture are reconciled. Now, let's look at them a final time.
I believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore, I am born of God. I am born of God, therefore, I do not commit sin. When I transgress the law, God does not see me as sinning because the sin is imputed directly to the ledger sheet of Jesus who has already paid for my sin.
For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
So, I ask again; did you transgress one of God's commandments during the last month? How about in the last week? What about yesterday? What about this morning?
Perhaps I should rephrase the question; did you steal anything this week; a pencil or pen or some paper from the office? Did you look at a person other than your spouse and lust after that person? Did you get really angry at someone; angry enough to meet the qualifications of Matthew 5:22? Any of these would be a transgression of God's commandments. Do these commandments not apply to you?
Consider a word: 'Impute'.
Most of us are probably only familiar with this word because we have read it in scripture. Paul used it several times in the fourth chapter of Romans. Perhaps the most familiar sentence containing this word is Romans 4:22; "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." The context shows Abraham believing God, and righteousness being 'imputed' to him as a result of that trust. This verse in Romans is actually a reference to Genesis 15:6.
And he believed in the LORD; and he
counted it to him for righteousness.
counted it to him for righteousness.
Here in Genesis we see that Abraham was counted righteous by God. Was it because Abraham did some great deed of righteousness? Was it because Abraham wasn't a liar? No. Abraham was a liar. Was it because Abraham was faithful to his wife? No. Abraham fathered a son by his wife's Egyptian slave girl. God didn't count Abraham righteous for any of these reasons. God counted Abraham righteous because Abraham trusted Him.
God is a bookkeeper. In the day of judgment, the books will be opened. God keeps books; He keeps accounts on each of us, and what God did in the case of Abraham was to make an adjustment to the books. God put "righteousness" on the page in His books where Abraham's name was. God juggled the books. He imputed righteousness to Abraham.
But, we read in another passage of Romans chapter four;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Those are the words of verse eight, and they tell us that God can exercise the option to NOT impute sin to someone. What we are seeing here and in verse 22 is that either righteousness or sin can be placed on our sheet in God's books at God's will. In the case of verse eight, we see that even if a man sins, God can elect to not enter that sin into His books.
Question: Is God just whimsical about this sort of thing, or what?
Of course, that answer to that question is that God is not whimsical, and that He uses a specific criterion in 'imputing' both sin and righteousness in His books. The point that we need to see in connection with this process is that God doesn't blink when He makes his entries in the books. He doesn't break His own rules, and He doesn't eliminate them either. His commandments are still very much in place.
Notice that God can elect to not impute sin to someone. That necessarily means that the person in view here sinned; and that means that the person had to transgress God's commandments.
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:
for sin is the transgression of the law. (1st John 3:4)
for sin is the transgression of the law. (1st John 3:4)
The religious leaders of Jesus' day claimed that He was trying to do away with the Law. Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to eliminate the Law.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
The Law is still in place, defining what God expects from His created beings, but God can exercise His option to NOT impute sin when His commandments are transgressed, and blessed is that man to whom God will not impute sin when transgressions occur. The point to remember is that God isn't whimsical about it, and He follows a long established criteria for doing so.
I trust that I am not the only one who, at one time or other has read scripture and been confused by the words. For a long time, I had trouble reconciling these two verses:
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)
I know that I fully believe that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Christ; therefore, according to scripture, I am born of God. And yet, I know myself. I know my nature. I know I transgress God's commandments. I do not doubt one bit that I am born of God; so how can 1st John 3:9 be true?
The answer is that God elects to NOT impute sin to my account when I transgress His commandments. His criteria is that I am born of Him, and this is where we return and again consider the concept of God 'imputing' or 'not imputing' sin.
We have seen from Romans 4:22 that God can impute righteousness based upon whatever criteria He elects to use. Similarly, we have learned from Romans 4:8 that God can choose to NOT impute sin to the transgressor. We also noted herein that 'impute' is an accounting term. As we examine this concept of 'imputation', it may serve us well to think of sins as 'debits' and righteousness as 'credits' on the ledger sheet.
Recognition of God's plan for our salvation is all important. He has established his plan, and only those who follow his plan will be saved. His plan has provided for anyone and everyone to be saved who will follow his plan. The plan was demonstrated by the Old Testament 'scapegoat' imagery. It allows God to impute any particular sin to the scapegoat's ledger sheet, but the condition that has to be met is that the sinner must believe in the scapegoat.
Jesus is the scapegoat. Anyone who desires to have their sins wiped from their ledger sheet, must simply believe that Jesus was provided by God to be the punished for sins. When I trust God on that matter; when I believe that Jesus was who He said He was; when I trust him to have taken the punishment for my sins; God imputes my sins to Jesus' ledger sheet. God counts my sins against Jesus' ledger sheet, and since Jesus paid for all sins, the matter is closed. I walk away scot free.
God didn't just let me off the hook for my sin. He just changed the recipient of the punishment. God didn't do away with the law. His law is eternal. Even Jesus didn't destroy the law, much less any of the apostles of the New Testament time period. God's law still applies to me, but when I transgress God's law, He imputes what should have been my sin to the ledger sheet of Jesus. He doesn't even see me as sinning. This is how our two verses of scripture are reconciled. Now, let's look at them a final time.
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)
I believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore, I am born of God. I am born of God, therefore, I do not commit sin. When I transgress the law, God does not see me as sinning because the sin is imputed directly to the ledger sheet of Jesus who has already paid for my sin.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
IN GOOD COMPANY
In February, I posted a series on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, in which I concluded that the 70 'shabuwa' of that passage were completed by resurrection morning, and that all of the items listed in verse 24 were accomplished by Yeshua of Nazareth prior to the end of his earthly ministry. I am happy to find that this opinion is shared by another person. Let me quote him.
". . . [the] resurrection of Christ; whereby transgression should be finished, and sins ended, iniquity be expiated, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and this Vision be accomplished, and the Prophet consummated, that Prophet whom the Jews expected; and whereby the most Holy should be anointed, he who is therefore in the next words [Daniel 9:25] called the Anointed, that is, the Messiah, or the Christ. For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years [the 70-weeks of Daniel 9:24] are ended with the death of Christ."
Scroll down to read the name of the man who is the author of the above statement.
His name was Isaac Newton; Sir Isaac Newton
". . . [the] resurrection of Christ; whereby transgression should be finished, and sins ended, iniquity be expiated, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and this Vision be accomplished, and the Prophet consummated, that Prophet whom the Jews expected; and whereby the most Holy should be anointed, he who is therefore in the next words [Daniel 9:25] called the Anointed, that is, the Messiah, or the Christ. For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years [the 70-weeks of Daniel 9:24] are ended with the death of Christ."
Scroll down to read the name of the man who is the author of the above statement.
His name was Isaac Newton; Sir Isaac Newton
WHAT AMAZES ME
Statements made by the Catholic Church about the Sabbath day
“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.
“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.
“The Catholic church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday...The Protestant World at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the (Catholic) Church’s right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant World.” James Cardinal Gibbons in the Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1983.
“It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church.” Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.
“They [the Protestants] deem it their duty to keep the Sunday holy. Why? Because the Catholic Church tells them to do so. They have no other reason...The observance of Sunday thus comes to be an ecclesiastical law entirely distinct from the divine law of Sabbath observance...The author of the Sunday law...is the Catholic Church.” Ecclesiastical Review, February 1914.
“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the Biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the Biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” Rome’s Challenge www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline Dec 2003
“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 edition), p. 72-73 (16th Edition, p 111; 88th Edition, p. 89).
“For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible.” Catholic Virginian, October 3, 1947, p. 9, article “To Tell You the Truth.”
“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
“Question: How prove you that the church had power to command feasts and holydays?
“Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
“Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
“Answer: Had she not such power, she could not a done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day of the week, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism On the Obedience Due to the Church, 3rd edition, Chapter 2, p. 174 (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York).
“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. ‘The day of the Lord’ was chosen, not from any direction noted in the Scriptures, but from the (Catholic) Church’s sense of its own power...People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.” St. Catherine Church Sentinel, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.
“Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday...Now the Church...instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday.” Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 edition, p. 136.
“Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day - Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!”
“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons.” James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, Md. (1877-1921), in a signed letter.
“Question. - How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
“Answer. - By the very act of changing Sabbath into Sunday which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.
“Question. - How prove you that?
“Answer. - Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin: and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.” An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, composed by Henry Tuberville, p. 58.
“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.” John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
“Question. What warrant have you for keeping Sunday preferably to the ancient sabbath which was Saturday?
“Answer. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and apostolic tradition.
“Question. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
“Answer. The Scripture commands us to hear the church (St.Matt.18:17; St. Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess 2:15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.
“St John speaks of the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10) but he does not tell us what day of the week that was, much less does he tell us what day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. St.Luke speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. And St. Paul (1 Cor.16:2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay in store what they designated to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one or the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforth a day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this ancient custom is the testimony of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be such religious observers of Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act more by humor, than by religion; since Sundays and holidays all stand upon the same foundation, namely the ordinance of the (Roman Catholic) church.” Catholic Christian Instructed, 17th edition, p. 272-273.
“Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.” John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883.
“The Sunday...is purely a creation of the Catholic Church.”American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883.
“Sunday...is the law of the Catholic Church alone...” American Sentinel (Catholic), June 1893.
“Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles...From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.” Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August 1900.
“It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.
“From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church.” Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, #2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.
“Sunday is our mark or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.
“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons.
“The (Roman Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday.” The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.
“Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday.” Catholic Record, September 17, 1893.
“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws...
“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.” Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975), Chicago, Illinois, “Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI”
“I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day?...
“The command of the Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ Exodus 20:8-10...
“You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep the Sabbath; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home every Sunday of your lives...
“But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week: the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’; and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other - a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it’, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 2:1-3. Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation; He did not finish it. It was on Saturday that He ‘ended His work which he had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.’ Genesis 2:2-3...
“Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; there is nobody who attempts to deny it. It is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday and not Saturday?
“You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’, who shall dare to say, ‘Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day: but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?’ This is a most important question, which I know not how you answer...
“You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a manner as the observance of one day in seven as the holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding. Who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.” Excerpts from “Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?”, pages 3-15 in The Clifton Tract, vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church 1869.
“The arguments...are firmly grounded on the word of God, and having been closely studied with the Bible in hand, leave no escape for the conscientious Protestant except the abandonment of Sunday worship and the return to Saturday, commanded by their teacher, the Bible, or, unwilling to abandon the tradition of the Catholic Church, which enjoins the keeping of Sunday, and which they have accepted in direct opposition to their teacher, the Bible, consistently accept her (the Catholic Church) in all her teachings. Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicism and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.” James Cardinal Gibbons, in Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.
Friday, April 30, 2010
THE 'MAZZAROTH'
It's a word that comes from scripture, at least in the King James Version of the Bible. Many of our English versions have retained this word. Among these are the NKJV, the ESV, the RSV, the ASV and the WEB. Notably, in Young's Literal Version the text says; "Mazzaroth", and in the Hebrew Names Version the text reads; "Mazzarot".
The NIV has rendered the original Hebrew word as 'constellations' which leaves us to wonder as to which constellations are in view, and the NASB translates the word in the singular form as 'a constellation' which may be misleading. The word does have something to do with the constellations in our sky, those groupings of stars that stir the imaginations of so many people.
The closest word I know of that would equate to the Mazzaroth is Zodiac.
Oh, no. I said a bad word. Many people believe that the Zodiac is somehow evil. That belief may come from the way these particular star groupings are used in astrology. We need to understand that there is a major difference between astronomy and astrology, and we need to find out who the author of the Zodiac is.
He who created the stars also created the Zodiac. He didn't call it the Zodiac. He named it the Mazzaroth. God did that. God named this particular group of constellations, the Mazzaroth. He also gave names to the individual constellations that comprise the Mazzaroth. We find a few names of the star groups in scripture.
For more than 6,000 years God has declared himself to mankind via the heavens. The night skies have shown knowledge to man in God's truly universal language. That is why Romans 1:18-20 is able to state:
The use of the constellations in the Zodiac in the workings of astrology are the design of Satan. We need to remember that Satan never creates anything. All Satan can do is pervert what God has created, and such is the nature of astrology. His ministers have given different names to the constellations and then used the whole system to prognosticate personal fortunes. If you or someone you know is participating in this business, you (or they) need to repent and get out of it.
The definitive work on what the original names and symbols presented in the Zodiac all mean was done by E.W. Bullinger over a century ago. You can buy the book in hardback or softback, or you can read it for free online at this link.
There are twelve constellations that lie in the plane of the ecliptic, the path that the sun makes through the sky. Each one of the twelve has three associated constellations called Decans. Each constellation portrays a character in the story God designed them to tell to us. Perhaps in a future writing, we will examine the story in depth and the individual players. For now, it is for me to discuss the 'So What' question of the Mazzaroth; so here it is;
So What?
We who are Christians believe that we are saved by God's grace when we place our full trust for salvation in the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. This teaching is the very essence of Christianity, and is stated in 1st Corinthians 15:1-5. We are also told that Abraham believed God, and God's righteousness was imputed to him in return. We find this teaching in James 2:23 as well as other places. It is a direct reference to the events of Genesis 15:1-6.
Abraham/Abram was distraught that in his old age he still had no son to be his heir. God took him outside to look at the stars as we read:
As Christians, we present these verses to others and explain to them that this is where Abraham got saved. We explain that when Abraham believed God, God saved him, and we never stop to ask ourselves what it was that Abraham believed that resulted in his salvation. Verse six records one short statement made by God after Abraham had looked up at the stars: "So shall thy seed be." Make note of the singularity of the word seed. That will be important later.
We are familiar with the passages which declare that Abraham is promised that his posterity will be as numerous as the sands of the sea. In the same verse, Genesis 22:17, we are also told that his seed will be "as the stars of the heaven".
The population of Earth is not as numerous as either the stars of the heavens or as the sands of the sea, not even if we include all the many generations since Adam. Abraham's descendants are very numerous, but not that numerous, even if you include all of his spiritual offspring. Will his posterity ever be that numerous? Well, it's not really a question we can answer, but we may possibly be able to answer some different questions:
#1 Is Genesis 15:5-6 saying that Abraham's posterity would
be as numerous as the stars of the heavens?
#2 Was Abraham saved by believing a promise from God
that he would have a lot of posterity?
#3 Isn't salvation dependent upon our trusting the finished
work of Christ at the cross?
#4 Was Abraham saved by believing something else?
Genesis 15:5-6 is commonly interpreted as saying that Abraham believed God's promise of multiplied posterity, and because of that trust, Abraham was saved. This is not correct. What? That's right, Abraham was saved because he believed the gospel; just like you can be saved today; just like I am saved today. Galatians 3:8 tells us that the gospel was preached to Abraham.
If the gospel was preached to Abraham, then he had the opportunity to believe it, and if he believed it, then his trust/faith was counted unto him for righteousness. So, it wasn't his belief in God's promise of posterity that was counted to him for righteousness. So, why do we find that God's righteousness was counted to Abraham in the same verses that tell us about God showing the stars of the heavens to him? Because that's when and where God preached the gospel to Abraham, and He did it using the stars to tell the story.
Huh?
Let's look at the verses of Genesis 15 again.
Two distinct words in verse five are translated from the same Hebrew word. What unfortunate translation work of the two words in bold type. Both tell and number come from the Hebrew word (Strong's H5608); caphar. Tell is a better rendering, but number gives us the idea that God wanted Abraham to count the stars. If Abraham's count of the stars was to be the basis for God giving him posterity, then I think Abraham would have gone childless. Have you ever tried to count the stars?
The New King James Version is worse than the KJV which I'm showing here. It actually says;
"Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them."
The NASB and NIV say just about the same thing with slight differences in phrasing, and the same is true for all of the other versions shown on the Blue Letter Bible site.
The translation of the word caphar is the culprit here. Here is how this same word is translated elsewhere in the KJV. [each word is shown with the number of times it is translated that way]
Caphar is only translated as count 6 times out of the total 160 times it occurs. That means something, but we can also look at how it is translated the most. Most of the time this word is translated as scribe or tell. [Compare Genesis 24:66 and Psalm 71:15] The definition of caphar is:
to count, to recount, to relate
I'm particularly drawn to the 24 times that this word is translated as declare. We've already looked at one of the passages where caphar is so translated. Let's look at it again.
Take a minute and read the full text of Psalm 19.
How can God say what He says in Romans 1:18-20:
How can men be without excuse just because they have seen God's creation? When and how has God "shewed it unto them"? For more than 6,000 years, God's witness in his created Mazzaroth has told the story of His plan for the redemption of mankind. It's right there in the stars that you can see every night. It's right there in the same stars that Abraham saw. It's right there in the stars that God used to tell the story to Abraham.
It's right there in the stars that declare God's handiwork. What is God's handiwork? The redemption of mankind. The Mazzaroth tells the story of the redemption of my BY A REDEEMER born of a virgin (Virgo). It tells the story all the way to the end where the Lion (Leo) of the tribe of Judah reigns supreme. It tells the story of the coming seed of the woman. How many is that?
Can we make a paraphrase of Genesis 15:5-6?
It doesn't say; "This is how many offspring you will have."
It says; "So shall thy seed be." How many seed?
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)
God gave the salvation message in the stars so that no one would have any excuse.
Now, just exactly what was Abraham's complaint to God in Genesis 15:2-3?
And what was God's response in verse four?
AND THEN GOD TOOK HIM OUT TO LOOK AT THE MAZZAROTH.
And when Abraham had recounted the witness of the stars, God said; "So shall thy seed be."
Abraham, this promised seed of the woman shall be your heir. How 'bout that Abraham?
This is what was happening in Genesis 15:1-6.
Check out the link
The NIV has rendered the original Hebrew word as 'constellations' which leaves us to wonder as to which constellations are in view, and the NASB translates the word in the singular form as 'a constellation' which may be misleading. The word does have something to do with the constellations in our sky, those groupings of stars that stir the imaginations of so many people.
The closest word I know of that would equate to the Mazzaroth is Zodiac.
Oh, no. I said a bad word. Many people believe that the Zodiac is somehow evil. That belief may come from the way these particular star groupings are used in astrology. We need to understand that there is a major difference between astronomy and astrology, and we need to find out who the author of the Zodiac is.
He who created the stars also created the Zodiac. He didn't call it the Zodiac. He named it the Mazzaroth. God did that. God named this particular group of constellations, the Mazzaroth. He also gave names to the individual constellations that comprise the Mazzaroth. We find a few names of the star groups in scripture.
"Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers
of the south." (Job 9:9)
" Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands
of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst
thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31-32)
"Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the
shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night:
that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the
face of the earth: Yahweh is his name:" (Amos 5:8)
of the south." (Job 9:9)
" Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands
of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst
thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31-32)
"Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the
shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night:
that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the
face of the earth: Yahweh is his name:" (Amos 5:8)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3)
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3)
For more than 6,000 years God has declared himself to mankind via the heavens. The night skies have shown knowledge to man in God's truly universal language. That is why Romans 1:18-20 is able to state:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
The use of the constellations in the Zodiac in the workings of astrology are the design of Satan. We need to remember that Satan never creates anything. All Satan can do is pervert what God has created, and such is the nature of astrology. His ministers have given different names to the constellations and then used the whole system to prognosticate personal fortunes. If you or someone you know is participating in this business, you (or they) need to repent and get out of it.
The definitive work on what the original names and symbols presented in the Zodiac all mean was done by E.W. Bullinger over a century ago. You can buy the book in hardback or softback, or you can read it for free online at this link.
There are twelve constellations that lie in the plane of the ecliptic, the path that the sun makes through the sky. Each one of the twelve has three associated constellations called Decans. Each constellation portrays a character in the story God designed them to tell to us. Perhaps in a future writing, we will examine the story in depth and the individual players. For now, it is for me to discuss the 'So What' question of the Mazzaroth; so here it is;
So What?
We who are Christians believe that we are saved by God's grace when we place our full trust for salvation in the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. This teaching is the very essence of Christianity, and is stated in 1st Corinthians 15:1-5. We are also told that Abraham believed God, and God's righteousness was imputed to him in return. We find this teaching in James 2:23 as well as other places. It is a direct reference to the events of Genesis 15:1-6.
Abraham/Abram was distraught that in his old age he still had no son to be his heir. God took him outside to look at the stars as we read:
"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,
and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to
him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)
and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to
him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)
As Christians, we present these verses to others and explain to them that this is where Abraham got saved. We explain that when Abraham believed God, God saved him, and we never stop to ask ourselves what it was that Abraham believed that resulted in his salvation. Verse six records one short statement made by God after Abraham had looked up at the stars: "So shall thy seed be." Make note of the singularity of the word seed. That will be important later.
We are familiar with the passages which declare that Abraham is promised that his posterity will be as numerous as the sands of the sea. In the same verse, Genesis 22:17, we are also told that his seed will be "as the stars of the heaven".
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply
thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon
the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon
the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
The population of Earth is not as numerous as either the stars of the heavens or as the sands of the sea, not even if we include all the many generations since Adam. Abraham's descendants are very numerous, but not that numerous, even if you include all of his spiritual offspring. Will his posterity ever be that numerous? Well, it's not really a question we can answer, but we may possibly be able to answer some different questions:
#1 Is Genesis 15:5-6 saying that Abraham's posterity would
be as numerous as the stars of the heavens?
#2 Was Abraham saved by believing a promise from God
that he would have a lot of posterity?
#3 Isn't salvation dependent upon our trusting the finished
work of Christ at the cross?
#4 Was Abraham saved by believing something else?
Genesis 15:5-6 is commonly interpreted as saying that Abraham believed God's promise of multiplied posterity, and because of that trust, Abraham was saved. This is not correct. What? That's right, Abraham was saved because he believed the gospel; just like you can be saved today; just like I am saved today. Galatians 3:8 tells us that the gospel was preached to Abraham.
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
If the gospel was preached to Abraham, then he had the opportunity to believe it, and if he believed it, then his trust/faith was counted unto him for righteousness. So, it wasn't his belief in God's promise of posterity that was counted to him for righteousness. So, why do we find that God's righteousness was counted to Abraham in the same verses that tell us about God showing the stars of the heavens to him? Because that's when and where God preached the gospel to Abraham, and He did it using the stars to tell the story.
Huh?
Let's look at the verses of Genesis 15 again.
"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,
and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to
him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)
and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to
him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)
Two distinct words in verse five are translated from the same Hebrew word. What unfortunate translation work of the two words in bold type. Both tell and number come from the Hebrew word (Strong's H5608); caphar. Tell is a better rendering, but number gives us the idea that God wanted Abraham to count the stars. If Abraham's count of the stars was to be the basis for God giving him posterity, then I think Abraham would have gone childless. Have you ever tried to count the stars?
The New King James Version is worse than the KJV which I'm showing here. It actually says;
"Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them."
The NASB and NIV say just about the same thing with slight differences in phrasing, and the same is true for all of the other versions shown on the Blue Letter Bible site.
The translation of the word caphar is the culprit here. Here is how this same word is translated elsewhere in the KJV. [each word is shown with the number of times it is translated that way]
scribe 50, tell 40, declare 24, number 23, count 6,
shew forth 5, writer 4, speak 2, accounted 1, commune 1,
told out 1, reckon 1, shewing 1, talk 1
shew forth 5, writer 4, speak 2, accounted 1, commune 1,
told out 1, reckon 1, shewing 1, talk 1
Caphar is only translated as count 6 times out of the total 160 times it occurs. That means something, but we can also look at how it is translated the most. Most of the time this word is translated as scribe or tell. [Compare Genesis 24:66 and Psalm 71:15] The definition of caphar is:
to count, to recount, to relate
I'm particularly drawn to the 24 times that this word is translated as declare. We've already looked at one of the passages where caphar is so translated. Let's look at it again.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3)
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3)
Take a minute and read the full text of Psalm 19.
How can God say what He says in Romans 1:18-20:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
How can men be without excuse just because they have seen God's creation? When and how has God "shewed it unto them"? For more than 6,000 years, God's witness in his created Mazzaroth has told the story of His plan for the redemption of mankind. It's right there in the stars that you can see every night. It's right there in the same stars that Abraham saw. It's right there in the stars that God used to tell the story to Abraham.
It's right there in the stars that declare God's handiwork. What is God's handiwork? The redemption of mankind. The Mazzaroth tells the story of the redemption of my BY A REDEEMER born of a virgin (Virgo). It tells the story all the way to the end where the Lion (Leo) of the tribe of Judah reigns supreme. It tells the story of the coming seed of the woman. How many is that?
Can we make a paraphrase of Genesis 15:5-6?
"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,
and profess to me what the stars say, if thou be willing to profess their
story: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in
Yahweh; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)
and profess to me what the stars say, if thou be willing to profess their
story: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in
Yahweh; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)
It doesn't say; "This is how many offspring you will have."
It says; "So shall thy seed be." How many seed?
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)
God gave the salvation message in the stars so that no one would have any excuse.
Now, just exactly what was Abraham's complaint to God in Genesis 15:2-3?
"And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo,
childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo,
one born in my house is mine heir."
And what was God's response in verse four?
"And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This
shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own
bowels shall be thine heir."
shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own
bowels shall be thine heir."
AND THEN GOD TOOK HIM OUT TO LOOK AT THE MAZZAROTH.
And when Abraham had recounted the witness of the stars, God said; "So shall thy seed be."
Abraham, this promised seed of the woman shall be your heir. How 'bout that Abraham?
This is what was happening in Genesis 15:1-6.
Check out the link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)