In chapter 32 of Job, a new player is introduced into the discussion. His name is Elihu, but who is he, really? He continues to speak for six chapters (32 to 37). His is the longest, uninterrupted discourse of the Book of Job. We know very little about him, only that he is the son of Barachel, the Buzite, who was of the family of Ram (Job 32:2). But, how does this identify him? It puts Elihu as a descendant of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (cp. Genesis 22:20-21),[1] which would probably make him a contemporary of Abraham and Isaac and perhaps Jacob. This conclusion gains some support in the fact that the text shows Job was allied with the Sabeans and the Chaldeans in the East, vis-à-vis of Mesopotamia, which would put the alliance prior to the Sabeans migrating to Africa (cp. Isaiah 43:3; cp. Genesis 11:9). Thus, the timeline agrees with Elihu living near the time of Abraham. Read the rest of this entry »
If we assume that the Jewish authorities who believed (John 8:31) were sincere, their sincerity didn’t rise to the point of being Jesus’ true disciples (John 8:31). Rather, they may have been willing to accept Jesus as their Messiah, but belief in him rose only to the point of what they expected the Messiah would be like. For example, they looked for one who would be a great general who would lead them out from under the Roman yoke and subjection to all other enemies. They also believe this Messiah would never die (John 12:34). What they weren’t looking for in a Messiah was a spiritual leader, or one who would lead them out from under their bondage to sin (John 8:34). They believed they could see already, vis-à-vis they thought they could understand spiritual matters (John 9:40-41), and they were unaware that they were blind in the spirit and couldn’t enter the Kingdom of God in their present condition (John 3:3). Read the rest of this entry »
When folks engage in a debate, it is generally understood by unbiased listeners which of the participants is acting appropriately and who is not. Moreover, as long as the debate is conducted about matters that are generally understood by the bystanders, they who stand by and listen will also realize who has the better argument, and who does not. As Jesus and the Jewish authorities engaged in their debate over the identity of the Messiah, the people were able to understand that the Pharisees were being obnoxious in how they treated Jesus. They, not Jesus, engaged in slurs and didn’t conduct themselves in a serious manner. Jesus, on the other hand was always serious, and even replied to their slurs without descending into similar speech. He also had the better argument, using scripture correctly, and these folks, remember, were religious folk, pilgrims who took their faith seriously. Therefore, many of them who were paying attention to the proceedings began to trust in Jesus (John 8:30). Read the rest of this entry »
In Mark 4:24-25 Jesus is still speaking with his disciples in a context of their being alone with him. He couldn’t have been speaking to the multitude, because he had already implied they didn’t have ears to hear spiritual things. Why would Jesus tell the multitude, who didn’t have ears to hear to use their ears? Therefore, what might be called, the Parable of Taking Heed would make no sense, if it were given to those who had already rejected the Gospel. Read the rest of this entry »
Who is correct—James (James 2:24)—or Paul (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16)? Or, is there a real controversy at all. Is it possible for the two to be in agreement, or would such a thing be forced upon the text? The main thing to keep in mind is that Jesus claimed Scripture cannot be forced to contradict itself (John 10:35). That is, we must read the Scriptures in such a manner that they do not contradict. But, how is it possible for James and Paul to agree, since neither seems to leave any room for the other to be correct? Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Perspectives of Those Near and Afar Off
At least most of us have heard the expression thinking outside the box, but what does it mean and how does it occur? I believe the box is a symbol of the world in which we live. It represents our cultural norm and our present worldview. To think outside **that** box requires something extraordinary to occur to us. It cannot simply be done on command or through the force of one’s own willpower. It would be like trying to imagine a color that isn’t based upon the colors: red, blue and yellow. All the colors of the rainbow, which we are able to see, are derived from a combination of two or all three of these colors and in varying degrees. So, imagine a color that is **not** based upon a combination of two or more of these colors? Put another way, think of an original thought that no one has ever thought before (Ecclesiastes 1:9; cp. 1Corinthians 2:9). None of these things can be done on command or through the strength of one’s own willpower. Changing one’s worldview or thinking a new thought occurs only when a person is brought through just the right circumstance that forces him to challenge the truth he knows, in order to embrace a new and greater truth to replace it. Read the rest of this entry »
According to Hebrews 11:8 God called Abraham to leave the place where he lived and go to another place, which he would inherit later. Specifically, Abraham was called by the Lord to leave his father’s house to go to a country that the Lord would show him (Genesis 12:1-4). In other words, it doesn’t appear that Abraham knew what land that would be. Abraham obeyed God (Hebrews 11:8) and left the land where he dwelt, and his father’s house, just as the Lord had commanded. The Lord also promised a reward for Abraham’s obedience. Abraham would become a great nation, would be a blessing to all nations, and the Lord would protect him (Hebrews 11:8; Genesis 12:1-4). However, it wasn’t until Abraham actually arrived in the land of Canaan that God specifically promised to give that particular land to his descendants (Genesis 12:7). Read the rest of this entry »
Most, but not all, of the New Covenant translators have Hebrews 9:16 appear as a last will and testament, but the New Covenant is not a last will and testament, and this can be shown logically from the text. If the New Covenant is a new last will and testament, what was the first last will and testament, and who was the testator who died to ratify or empower it? Certainly, no one believes the Old Covenant was a last will and testament. No one died to put it in force. It was an agreement between God and Israel, and it was ratified through a blood sacrifice. Therefore, if the Mosaic Covenant became old to give place for the new under Christ, then the New Covenant is new, in that it is a better covenant of the same genre as the old one (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6). The New Covenant cannot be “better” than the Old Covenant, unless both represented similar agreements between God and man. Therefore, since the Mosaic Covenant wasn’t a last will and testament, neither could the New Covenant be a last will and testament. Read the rest of this entry »
Paul tells his readers that the Lord found fault with the first covenant and, therefore, sought to replace it (Hebrews 8:7), which suggests the question: did God offer Israel a faulty covenant? No, but how is this understood? First of all, God had a purpose for offering the first covenant, but salvation wasn’t it (Romans 7:12; Hebrews 8:8). The real problem with the Mosaic Covenant had nothing to do with what God offered Israel, it had to do with them. God found fault with his people (Hebrews 8:8; Jeremiah 31:32). Read the rest of this entry »
Paul tells us that Christ’s High Priesthood is founded upon a more excellent ministry, through which he mediates a better covenant that is founded upon better promises (Hebrews 8:6). How does Paul know this, and why should his readers believe him? Consider his argument for a moment. He claims the Law and the things therein, including the ministry of the Levitical priesthood, are but shadows of matters to come (Hebrews 8:5; cf. Colossians 2:17). We saw that the Tabernacle was a copy of a copy of the Reality (Exodus 25:9, 40), and, therefore, a shadow of something else. Logic concludes that the Reality must come before the shadow. In order for a shadow to exist at all, there must exist something of substance in the first place in order to cast it. So, which is greater, the shadow or the substance that casts the shadow? Obviously, it is the thing of substance or the reality, which in the context of Paul’s argument is Christ, the High Priest. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Jesus the Reality Who Casts the Shadow
Paul tells us in Hebrews 7:22 that Jesus has become the surety (G1450 – egguos) of a better covenant. The Greek word, translated surety, is found only here in the New Covenant, and it is never used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Covenant. So, what does Paul mean when he claims Jesus has been made the surety of a better covenant? To help us understand what Paul meant by a better covenant, we need to keep in mind what the Lord declared through the prophets (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27). The modus operandi of the New Covenant (the better covenant) is the Spirit, which points to the work of God, while that of the Old Covenant focused on an external code, which points to the labor of men. Read the rest of this entry »
In chapter seven of his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul begins to address those things that are “hard to be uttered” that the Jews had such difficulty in understanding, because they had become “dull of hearing” (Hebrews 5:11). Here in Hebrews 7 Paul begins to unveil a priesthood that is superior to that of Aaron. It was superior in five ways. First, Abraham, Levi’s great ancestor, submitted himself to this priesthood. Secondly, its coming was prophesied; thirdly, it was more solemn than that of Levi in that the Lord confirmed it with his oath. Fourth, it continues forever; that is, its High Priest never dies, so it is an unchangeable priesthood. Finally, the High Priest’s sacrifice, offered only once, was sufficient to make mankind perfect in righteousness, unlike the Levitical priesthood, which couldn’t make anything perfect, in that its priesthood had to offer sacrifices continually.
The Biblical figure, Melchizedek, is one whose identity has been debated from ancient times to even our own modern day. The Jews have a long tradition that it is Shem, which would account for him being greater than Abraham, but contradictory in that Melchizedek had no lineage. His appearance with Abraham is somewhat of a surprise, especially as the Priest of the Most High God, a title claimed later by the Jews’ Levitical priesthood. Even more surprisingly, he refreshes Abraham and his party with bread and wine, symbols used by Christians for the Lord’s Supper, thousands of years later. The fact that Abraham recognizes him as a priest of higher rank than himself is also unexpected, especially since Abraham is called the friend of God, and all the patriarchs of that day were priests. Every sacrifice to the Most High God that is recorded in Genesis in Abraham’s day was offered by Abraham. So, who is Melchizedek, and why is he considered to be the Priest of the Most High God, but Abraham, the friend of God, holds no such title? Read the rest of this entry »
In the context of Paul’s epistle the two absolutely unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to do is to lie, are when he gives a promise (Genesis 17:2) and when he takes his oath (Genesis 22:16-17). In either case his integrity compels him to be true (Hebrews 6:18). Therefore, God took an oath and swore to Abraham for the sake of Abraham and his descendants, that they might have strong encouragement or comfort (G3874) in the thing the Lord had promised to do. Read the rest of this entry »
In Hebrews 6:13 and 16 Paul expresses the significance of the divine oath. In a court of law men assure one another that what they are about to testify is the truth by solemnly swearing to that effect. One’s oath is supposed to be considered true or as close to the truth as the oath taker is able to express and make known. The oath taker swears by someone greater than he (verse-16), which is sometimes by God (Genesis 4:26; 24:3; Deuteronomy 6:13) but at times, as is today’s custom, by the state. Therefore, anyone who lies under oath in a state court is liable to be punished by the state. Under the Old Covenant those who lied with an oath to God were punished by him (Exodus 20:7; Ecclesiastes 5:4-6). Read the rest of this entry »
Most, but not all, of the New Covenant translators have Hebrews 9:16 appear as a last will and testament, but the New Covenant is not a last will and testament, and this can be shown logically from the text. If the New Covenant is a new last will and testament, what was the first last will and testament, and who was the testator who died to ratify or empower it? Certainly, no one believes the Old Covenant was a last will and testament. No one died to put it in force. It was an agreement between God and Israel, and it was ratified through a blood sacrifice. Therefore, if the Mosaic Covenant became old to give place for the new under Christ, then the New Covenant is new, in that it is a better covenant of the same genre as the old one (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6). The New Covenant cannot be “better” than the Old Covenant, unless both represented similar agreements between God and man. Therefore, since the Mosaic Covenant wasn’t a last will and testament, neither could the New Covenant be a last will and testament. 
In chapter seven of his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul begins to address those things that are “hard to be uttered” that the Jews had such difficulty in understanding, because they had become “dull of hearing” (Hebrews 5:11). Here in Hebrews 7 Paul begins to unveil a priesthood that is superior to that of Aaron. It was superior in five ways. First, Abraham, Levi’s great ancestor, submitted himself to this priesthood. Secondly, its coming was prophesied; thirdly, it was more solemn than that of Levi in that the Lord confirmed it with his oath. Fourth, it continues forever; that is, its High Priest never dies, so it is an unchangeable priesthood. Finally, the High Priest’s sacrifice, offered only once, was sufficient to make mankind perfect in righteousness, unlike the Levitical priesthood, which couldn’t make anything perfect, in that its priesthood had to offer sacrifices continually.
The Biblical figure, Melchizedek, is one whose identity has been debated from ancient times to even our own modern day. The Jews have a long tradition that it is Shem, which would account for him being greater than Abraham, but contradictory in that Melchizedek had no lineage. His appearance with Abraham is somewhat of a surprise, especially as the Priest of the Most High God, a title claimed later by the Jews’ Levitical priesthood. Even more surprisingly, he refreshes Abraham and his party with bread and wine, symbols used by Christians for the Lord’s Supper, thousands of years later. The fact that Abraham recognizes him as a priest of higher rank than himself is also unexpected, especially since Abraham is called the friend of God, and all the patriarchs of that day were priests. Every sacrifice to the Most High God that is recorded in Genesis in Abraham’s day was offered by Abraham. So, who is Melchizedek, and why is he considered to be the Priest of the Most High God, but Abraham, the friend of God, holds no such title? 
Smoodock's Blog 