Useful Q & A
- Thread starter Webers.Home
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
.
26» Where Is Noah's Ark?
• Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area-- a
country --never a specific geological feature by the same name.
The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land
mass like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range
of hills or highlands; for example:
In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.
So; what happened to the ark? Well; according to the dimensions given at
Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like what the beautiful minds call a right
rectangular prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common
shoe box. So most of the lumber and logs used in its construction would've
been nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, cabins,
fences, barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.
I think it's reasonable to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled
the ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including
fires. Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water
using refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so
everybody needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their
daily needs.
There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.
_
26» Where Is Noah's Ark?
• Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area-- a
country --never a specific geological feature by the same name.
The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land
mass like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range
of hills or highlands; for example:
In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.
So; what happened to the ark? Well; according to the dimensions given at
Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like what the beautiful minds call a right
rectangular prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common
shoe box. So most of the lumber and logs used in its construction would've
been nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, cabins,
fences, barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.
I think it's reasonable to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled
the ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including
fires. Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water
using refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so
everybody needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their
daily needs.
There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.
_
.
27» Why Was Canaan Execrated Instead Of His Father?
The curse on Canaan wasn't personal, i.e. it was more or less collateral
damage due to his dad's exclusion from the blessings bestowed upon the
other two brothers per Gen 9:26-27.
As a result of missing that blessing; Ham's posterity became dependent
upon employment opportunities created by his brothers' prosperity, ergo:
Canaan's line became the Bible's very first working class, i.e. instead of
moguls, they were destined to become minions all because of their father's
shameful disrespect for Noah's dignity.
Canaan's fate seems terribly unfair to be caught in the middle like that, but
it wouldn't be the last time a man's posterity was effected by his conduct.
For example God dealt in a similar way with the evil king Jeconiah. (Jer
22:29-30)
_
27» Why Was Canaan Execrated Instead Of His Father?
The curse on Canaan wasn't personal, i.e. it was more or less collateral
damage due to his dad's exclusion from the blessings bestowed upon the
other two brothers per Gen 9:26-27.
As a result of missing that blessing; Ham's posterity became dependent
upon employment opportunities created by his brothers' prosperity, ergo:
Canaan's line became the Bible's very first working class, i.e. instead of
moguls, they were destined to become minions all because of their father's
shameful disrespect for Noah's dignity.
Canaan's fate seems terribly unfair to be caught in the middle like that, but
it wouldn't be the last time a man's posterity was effected by his conduct.
For example God dealt in a similar way with the evil king Jeconiah. (Jer
22:29-30)
_
.
I have access to several English versions of the Bible, including the KJV,
NKJV, NIV, NAS, RSV, and the Catholic. None say anything about Canaan
uncovering Noah. According to the language and grammar of the English
text, it was Ham all the way.
BTW: According to Gen 9:21, Noah was already uncovered before Ham came
into his tent, i.e. Noah himself did that part.
_
I have access to several English versions of the Bible, including the KJV,
NKJV, NIV, NAS, RSV, and the Catholic. None say anything about Canaan
uncovering Noah. According to the language and grammar of the English
text, it was Ham all the way.
BTW: According to Gen 9:21, Noah was already uncovered before Ham came
into his tent, i.e. Noah himself did that part.
_
The language used is that Ham "saw" nakedness, not that he uncovered it. if he is committing this terribl;e sin, why did he go get his brothers? Wouldn't he have kept quiet? He was first to see crime happening and that's why he sought help. It also explains why Noah was not angry with him, but the grandson Canaan.
Let's see biblical definition of this because in no way was Noah responsible for it:
Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
In Hebrew this can also be "youngest grandson". Canaan is Noah's youngest grandson and is person Noah was angry with. Clearly Canaan is guilty party.
.
Ham's sin wasn't in catching his father disrobed. His sin was in blabbing
about it to his brothers when he should've said nothing in order to prevent
subjecting his dad to shame and disgrace.
When I was young boy and silil living at home, by dad got really drunk on
vodka that made him sick. He went downstairs late at night to vomit from
the front porch; which was a location adjacent to my sister's bedroom where
she could see him outside.
Well; my dad was stark naked at the time; which I would've never known
had not my sister blabbed about it next day.
Ham and my sister are ugly people. Nobody's reputation is safe in the
hands of devils like those two.
Were Ham seeking assistance, he would've returned with his brothers, but didn't.
And why not? Because Ham had no sympathy for his father's dignity.
_
Ham's sin wasn't in catching his father disrobed. His sin was in blabbing
about it to his brothers when he should've said nothing in order to prevent
subjecting his dad to shame and disgrace.
When I was young boy and silil living at home, by dad got really drunk on
vodka that made him sick. He went downstairs late at night to vomit from
the front porch; which was a location adjacent to my sister's bedroom where
she could see him outside.
Well; my dad was stark naked at the time; which I would've never known
had not my sister blabbed about it next day.
Ham and my sister are ugly people. Nobody's reputation is safe in the
hands of devils like those two.
Were Ham seeking assistance, he would've returned with his brothers, but didn't.
And why not? Because Ham had no sympathy for his father's dignity.
_
.
28» Why Was Meat Added To Man's Diet?
• Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the
green grasses, I give you all these.
It seems plausible to me that the inclusion of meat in Man's diet is evidence
that the human body's strength was declining seeing as how Noah lived to
be 950, but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which Gen 25:7-8 describes as a ripe old age so the
human body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it
was in Abraham's.
According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.
Red meat has been demonized of late for a number of medical reasons, but
it, along with other sources of meat-- e.g. clams, swine, sheep, fish, and
poultry --still remains an excellent natural source of B12 without which post
Flood folk risk contracting deficiency diseases.
_
28» Why Was Meat Added To Man's Diet?
• Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the
green grasses, I give you all these.
It seems plausible to me that the inclusion of meat in Man's diet is evidence
that the human body's strength was declining seeing as how Noah lived to
be 950, but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which Gen 25:7-8 describes as a ripe old age so the
human body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it
was in Abraham's.
According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.
Red meat has been demonized of late for a number of medical reasons, but
it, along with other sources of meat-- e.g. clams, swine, sheep, fish, and
poultry --still remains an excellent natural source of B12 without which post
Flood folk risk contracting deficiency diseases.
_
No, Ham was distinguished through this whole thing. It was Canaan that was bad person.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
Ham sought his brothers help and they helped without even seeing anything. Canaan was rightfully cursed as he is guilty party. Ham was not cursed, nor his two brothers because they didn't do anything wrong.
.
Ham is twice specifically identified as Noah's son in the ninth chapter of
Genesis, whereas Canaan isn't specifically identified as Noah's son even
once. In point of fact, Canaan is twice specifically identified as Ham's son.
In my judicious estimation; Noah's younger son spoken of in Gen 9:24 is the
Ham spoken of in Gen 9:18-19 and Gen 9:22.
_
Ham is twice specifically identified as Noah's son in the ninth chapter of
Genesis, whereas Canaan isn't specifically identified as Noah's son even
once. In point of fact, Canaan is twice specifically identified as Ham's son.
In my judicious estimation; Noah's younger son spoken of in Gen 9:24 is the
Ham spoken of in Gen 9:18-19 and Gen 9:22.
_
.
29» God "Came Down" To Inspect The Tower Of Babel?
• Gen 11:5 . .Jehovah came down to look at the city and tower that man
had built
That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make
better sense by saying Jehovah looked down, instead of saying He "came"
down? Why bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know
all? Isn't God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see
everything from right where He is?
Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see the city and the tower
from Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything
up close and personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an
on-site eye witness. He did it that way again with Sodom and Gomorrah.
• Gen 18:21 . . I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether
according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.
Why bother to go down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't
God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything
from right where He is?
Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see and hear from Heaven
everything he needed to know about the city, but He wasn't satisfied. He
had to investigate, and establish the truth of every fact for Himself in person
as on-site eye witness, before moving against Sodom.
In future, should someone challenge the Lord by saying: How do you know
Sodom was bad? Were you there; did you actually see it yourself? Well; yes,
He was there and did actually see its bad for Himself.
And then there's the offering of Isaac.
• Gen 22:11-12 . .Then an angel of God called to him from heaven:
Abraham! Abraham! And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Do not raise
your hand against the lad, or do anything to him. For now I know that you
fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me.
Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future?
Then why did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know
everything there is to know?
Yes; but knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing
things by omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in
real time, as an eyewitness.
Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his
son, but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He
prefers to be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.
So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the
angel's instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's
compliance by personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the
bleachers, so to speak, watching all the action from first to last.
NOTE: Some of the ancient rabbis were baffled by these passages as they
seem to imply there are two Jehovahs. So they nick-named one of them as
Metatron: a celestial being whose name is his master's. Roughly speaking;
Metatron is authorized to speak for God, speak as God, be spoken to as
God; and be worshipped, obeyed, and respected as God.
No human has seen or heard the real God at any time (John 1:18, John 5:37,
and 1Tim 6:16). Till Christ came along; Metatron was the closest that humanity
ever came to associating with the ultimate supreme being.
_
29» God "Came Down" To Inspect The Tower Of Babel?
• Gen 11:5 . .Jehovah came down to look at the city and tower that man
had built
That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make
better sense by saying Jehovah looked down, instead of saying He "came"
down? Why bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know
all? Isn't God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see
everything from right where He is?
Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see the city and the tower
from Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything
up close and personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an
on-site eye witness. He did it that way again with Sodom and Gomorrah.
• Gen 18:21 . . I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether
according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.
Why bother to go down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't
God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything
from right where He is?
Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see and hear from Heaven
everything he needed to know about the city, but He wasn't satisfied. He
had to investigate, and establish the truth of every fact for Himself in person
as on-site eye witness, before moving against Sodom.
In future, should someone challenge the Lord by saying: How do you know
Sodom was bad? Were you there; did you actually see it yourself? Well; yes,
He was there and did actually see its bad for Himself.
And then there's the offering of Isaac.
• Gen 22:11-12 . .Then an angel of God called to him from heaven:
Abraham! Abraham! And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Do not raise
your hand against the lad, or do anything to him. For now I know that you
fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me.
Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future?
Then why did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know
everything there is to know?
Yes; but knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing
things by omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in
real time, as an eyewitness.
Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his
son, but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He
prefers to be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.
So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the
angel's instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's
compliance by personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the
bleachers, so to speak, watching all the action from first to last.
NOTE: Some of the ancient rabbis were baffled by these passages as they
seem to imply there are two Jehovahs. So they nick-named one of them as
Metatron: a celestial being whose name is his master's. Roughly speaking;
Metatron is authorized to speak for God, speak as God, be spoken to as
God; and be worshipped, obeyed, and respected as God.
No human has seen or heard the real God at any time (John 1:18, John 5:37,
and 1Tim 6:16). Till Christ came along; Metatron was the closest that humanity
ever came to associating with the ultimate supreme being.
_
.
30» Isaac Was Abraham's Only Son When He Was Offered?
• Gen 22:2 . .Then God said: Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom
you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.
Abraham actually had two sons at this time: Ishmael and Isaac. But only
one of his boys counted. Here's why.
• Gen 21:10-11 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac. The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of
his own.
Ishmael would always and forever be one of Abraham's biological sons; that
couldn't be undone with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell.
However; in the case of slave mothers; there was a way to break Ishmael's
legal ties to Abraham; and the way was actually quite to Hagar's advantage.
The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in
slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and
all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.
The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In
order for the common law to take effect; Abraham had to emancipate
Hagar; which he did.
• Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and
a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the
child, and sent her away
The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's
eldest son.
Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9)
but in legal matters relative to inheritance he's no son at all.
_
30» Isaac Was Abraham's Only Son When He Was Offered?
• Gen 22:2 . .Then God said: Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom
you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.
Abraham actually had two sons at this time: Ishmael and Isaac. But only
one of his boys counted. Here's why.
• Gen 21:10-11 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac. The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of
his own.
Ishmael would always and forever be one of Abraham's biological sons; that
couldn't be undone with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell.
However; in the case of slave mothers; there was a way to break Ishmael's
legal ties to Abraham; and the way was actually quite to Hagar's advantage.
The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in
slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and
all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.
The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In
order for the common law to take effect; Abraham had to emancipate
Hagar; which he did.
• Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and
a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the
child, and sent her away
The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's
eldest son.
Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9)
but in legal matters relative to inheritance he's no son at all.
_
.
31» Why Is Jeconiah's Curse So Important?
A curse, back in the Old Testament, leveled at a really bad king in Solomon's
royal line to David's throne reads like this:
• Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.
The bad king's name was Jeconiah (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah). Jesus'
dad Joseph was one of his descendants. (Matt 1:11)
It's commonly believed that the curse extended to Joseph, so that had he
been Jesus' biological father, it would have prevented Mary's boy from
ascending David's throne.
However, Joseph adopted Jesus and seeing as how adopted children inherit
from their fathers the same as biological children; then had the curse
extended to Joseph, it would have extended to Jesus too whether he was
virgin-conceived or not. In other words: seeing as how Jesus got into
Solomon's royal line by adoption, then of course he would've got into the
curse too because the throne and the curse were a package deal.
However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse on
Jeconiah's royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom with
Samaria in the north and Judah in the south. That situation came to an end
when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and
then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.
When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate the
entire land of Israel. So the curse doesn't apply to him.
• Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am
going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone
to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I
will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one
king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and
never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.
_
31» Why Is Jeconiah's Curse So Important?
A curse, back in the Old Testament, leveled at a really bad king in Solomon's
royal line to David's throne reads like this:
• Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.
The bad king's name was Jeconiah (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah). Jesus'
dad Joseph was one of his descendants. (Matt 1:11)
It's commonly believed that the curse extended to Joseph, so that had he
been Jesus' biological father, it would have prevented Mary's boy from
ascending David's throne.
However, Joseph adopted Jesus and seeing as how adopted children inherit
from their fathers the same as biological children; then had the curse
extended to Joseph, it would have extended to Jesus too whether he was
virgin-conceived or not. In other words: seeing as how Jesus got into
Solomon's royal line by adoption, then of course he would've got into the
curse too because the throne and the curse were a package deal.
However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse on
Jeconiah's royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom with
Samaria in the north and Judah in the south. That situation came to an end
when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and
then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.
When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate the
entire land of Israel. So the curse doesn't apply to him.
• Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am
going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone
to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I
will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one
king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and
never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.
_
.
32» What Is Matt 22:42-45 Supposed To Mean?
That's a reference to Ps 110:1 which Jesus interpreted speaking of Christ,
a.k.a. Messiah.
• Ps 110:1 . . The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand until I make
your enemies a footstool for your feet.
There's two distinctly different Hebrew words translated by the English word
"lord" in that passage
The first is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which is a name restricted to God's
use. (Isa 42:8)
The second is 'adown, which is a common word for superiors in the Old
Testament; both human and divine, for instance: Sarah referred to her
husband as 'adown (Gen 18:12).The people of Heth addressed Abraham as
'adown (Gen 23:5-6). Abraham's trusted servant referred to him as 'adown
(Gen 24:12). Rachel addressed her father Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:35).
And Jacob addressed Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). And God is spoken of as
'adown too, e.g. Isa 1:24 and Isa 3:1 et al.
Jesus' interpretation of Ps 110:1 says Christ is superior to David, which is
normally unthinkable seeing as the covenant that Moses' people agreed
upon with God ranks parents above their children. (Ex 20:12, cf. Eph 6:2)
Now, the thing is: David has no peers relative to kings on earth, seeing as
he was given the rank of God's firstborn son in that respect.
• Ps 89:20-27 . . I have found My servant David; with My holy oil I have
anointed him . . I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the
earth.
So, in order for one of David's sons to outrank their father, the son would.
have to be God's firstborn son in Heaven, viz: David's son would have to be
a divine being. (cf. Acts 2:32-36)
The theologians of Jesus' day knew the Old Testament practically word for
word, but they couldn't always explain it. No doubt they were aware that
Psalm 110 speaks of David's son, and that he would be superior to David,
and that he would be a divine being. I'm pretty sure they knew all that. But
what they hadn't as yet figured out is how this one particular man of David's
biological posterity could possibly become so incredibly exalted.
_
32» What Is Matt 22:42-45 Supposed To Mean?
That's a reference to Ps 110:1 which Jesus interpreted speaking of Christ,
a.k.a. Messiah.
• Ps 110:1 . . The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand until I make
your enemies a footstool for your feet.
There's two distinctly different Hebrew words translated by the English word
"lord" in that passage
The first is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which is a name restricted to God's
use. (Isa 42:8)
The second is 'adown, which is a common word for superiors in the Old
Testament; both human and divine, for instance: Sarah referred to her
husband as 'adown (Gen 18:12).The people of Heth addressed Abraham as
'adown (Gen 23:5-6). Abraham's trusted servant referred to him as 'adown
(Gen 24:12). Rachel addressed her father Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:35).
And Jacob addressed Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). And God is spoken of as
'adown too, e.g. Isa 1:24 and Isa 3:1 et al.
Jesus' interpretation of Ps 110:1 says Christ is superior to David, which is
normally unthinkable seeing as the covenant that Moses' people agreed
upon with God ranks parents above their children. (Ex 20:12, cf. Eph 6:2)
Now, the thing is: David has no peers relative to kings on earth, seeing as
he was given the rank of God's firstborn son in that respect.
• Ps 89:20-27 . . I have found My servant David; with My holy oil I have
anointed him . . I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the
earth.
So, in order for one of David's sons to outrank their father, the son would.
have to be God's firstborn son in Heaven, viz: David's son would have to be
a divine being. (cf. Acts 2:32-36)
The theologians of Jesus' day knew the Old Testament practically word for
word, but they couldn't always explain it. No doubt they were aware that
Psalm 110 speaks of David's son, and that he would be superior to David,
and that he would be a divine being. I'm pretty sure they knew all that. But
what they hadn't as yet figured out is how this one particular man of David's
biological posterity could possibly become so incredibly exalted.
_