(Re: Does the KJV omit translating the original Greek word *mello when it is alluding to Christ's Second Coming?)
Are you referring to Matthew 16:27, 2 Timothy 4:1, Acts 17:31, and Acts 24:15,25? If so, the KJV does translate the original Greek word "mello" (G3195) in those verses as "shall", or "to come". But those verses did not require that Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming was "about to" happen from the viewpoint of people in the first century AD. For Acts 26:22-23 employs mello (translated as "should") to refer even to Moses' prophesying of the first coming of Christ (Deuteronomy 18:18-19, Acts 3:22-24), which prophesying occurred some 1,400 years before Christ's first coming.
Also, according to your view, when was the fulfillment of Acts 24:15, which uses mello?
Also, are you referring to Revelation 12:5? If so, the KJV does translate the original Greek word "mello' (G3195) there as "was". But Revelation 12:5 does not refer to Jesus' Christ's Second Coming per se.
(See Revelation 12:5 below. Also, see the "Soon" section of Revelation 1:1 below)
--
*Matthew 16:28 / *Mt. 16:28 -
(Re: The *transfiguration)
The transfiguration of Jesus Christ was a coming of the Kingdom of God with power (Mark 9:1-9, Luke 9:27-36) in the same sense that Jesus' previous and subsequent casting out of devils was a coming of the Kingdom of God with power (Matthew 12:28, Luke 11:20). That is, such events showed that God's power had come to the earth in the person of Jesus Christ at His first coming.
So Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled at the subsequent transfiguration (Matthew 16:28 to 17:9, Luke 9:27-36, Mark 9:1-9; 2 Peter 1:16-18). Just as the "power", "coming", and "majesty" in 2 Peter 1:16 refer to the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:17-18, so the "power", "coming", and "kingdom" in Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28, and Luke 9:27 refer to the subsequent transfiguration in Mark 9:2-9, Matthew 17:1-9, and Luke 9:28-36.
Regarding Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming in Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38...
(See Acts 1:11 below)
~
Jesus Christ's assurance in Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 was not inane. For people almost always have no assurance that they will still be alive tomorrow (James 4:14, Luke 12:20), much less in about a week's time (Matthew 17:1, Luke 9:28, Mark 9:2).
~
(Re: Does Christian Futurism fail to take Jesus' statement at face value?)
Christian Futurism does take Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 at face value, just as it is Christian Futurism which almost always takes Bible prophecies, such as Second-Coming verses, at face value, in the sense of literally, so much so that preterism (mistakenly) mocks Christian Futurism for its literalism.
~
(Re: Is Jesus' statement referring to the preceding verse?)
No, Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 are not referring to the preceding verse, but to the following verses. For Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38 have not been fulfilled yet.
~
(Re: "Verily" refers to an application of teaching previously spoken, not subsequently)
The transfiguration of Jesus Christ was a literal application of the literal teaching previously spoken in Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38. For 2 Peter 1:16-18 refers to the transfiguration, which was the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1. And the transfiguration showed what Jesus' "own glory" (Luke 9:26) at His future, Second Coming in Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38 will literally look like to everyone when they will literally see Him at His Second Coming (Matthew 24:30, Revelation 1:7). That is, just as at the transfiguration, Jesus' "face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light" (Matthew 17:2), so He will appear to everyone that way at His Second Coming. Also, the transfiguration showed what the glory of the angels (Luke 9:26) who will come with Jesus at His Second Coming in Matthew 16:27, Matthew 24:30-31, Luke 9:26, Mark 8:38, and Mark 13:26-27 will literally look like to everyone when the Second Coming is fulfilled. For Elijah and Moses were seen "in glory" at the transfiguration (Luke 9:30-31); and even human "messengers", like how Elijah and Moses are human messengers of God, can be referred to as "angels" (cf. Luke 7:24 in the original Greek).
--
*Matthew 17:4 / *Mt. 17:4 -
The apostle Peter could have known who he was seeing in Matthew 17:4 by Jesus Christ having addressed Moses and Elijah by name while talking with them in Matthew 17:3.
--
*Matthew 17:9 / *Mt. 17:9 -
Here the original Greek word (horama: G3705) translated as "vision" can refer to an actual occurrence, for it simply means something which is seen (cf. Mark 9:9, Luke 9:36). Just as Moses' "sight" (horama) of the burning bush (Acts 7:31) actually happened (Exodus 3:2 to 4:17), so the apostles' "vision" of (Matthew 17:9), their "seeing" (Mark 9:9, Luke 9:36) Moses and Elijah could have actually happened. Moses and Elijah could have been sent down physically from heaven by God to speak with Jesus Christ about His impending death (Luke 9:30-31). They could have been sent to encourage Jesus, like God later sent an angel to strengthen Jesus before His death (Luke 22:43). And Moses and Elijah could be sent physically to the earth again, at the midpoint of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, to be God's Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:3, and to perform the same miracles of judgment (Revelation 11:6) which they performed back in Old Testament times (James 5:17, Exodus 7:20).
(See Revelation 11:3 below)
--
*Matthew 17:10-13 / *Mt. 17:10 / *Mt. 17:11 -
(Re: Will Jesus return like *Elijah did?)
Regarding "like Elijah did", are you referring to Matthew 17:10-13? If so, that passage can be understood as referring to two different comings of Elijah, the first being John the Baptist's coming "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17, Matthew 17:12-13), and the second being a still-future, physical coming-back of Elijah himself, when he will restore all things (Matthew 17:11), in the sense of restoring all true doctrine -- that is, all true interpretation of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16) -- to the earth. This still-future, physical coming-back of Elijah himself could occur at the midpoint of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, when Elijah could come back physically from heaven as one of God's Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:3-12.
(See Revelation 11:3 and Acts 1:11 below)
Christians need to be wary of future, false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:24) who could claim that they are a coming of Jesus (Matthew 24:26) in the same, spiritual sense that John the Baptist was a coming of Elijah (Luke 1:17, Matthew 17:12-13).
And, even more problematically, Christians need to be wary of any future, false Jesus who will claim to be a "reincarnation" of Jesus. (There is even already a new Netflix show which purports to be about a boy who is a reincarnation of Jesus.)
(See also Revelation 13:4 and Revelation 13:11 below)
--
*Matthew 17:12 / *Mt. 17:12 -
This refers to the martyrdom of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:13, Matthew 14:10), and the subsequent martyrdom of Jesus Christ (the Son of man).
--
*Matthew 17:19-21 / *Mt. 17:19 -
This does not require (as is sometimes claimed) that its "mountain" is an evil spirit rather than a literal mountain; just as, for example, Hosea 4:12-13 does not require that its "mountains" are evil spirits rather than literal mountains. Similarly, Revelation 21:10, 2 Kings 2:16, Isaiah 40:12-13, and Ezekiel 11:23 do not require that their "mountains" are God's Holy Spirit rather than literal mountains.
--
*Matthew 18:2-4 / *Mt. 18:2 -
This refers to a childlike humility, not to a faith in Jesus Christ which lacks knowledge of Biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Peter 1:5; 1 Timothy 4:16). Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:20 refers to a childlike lack of malice, not to a faith in Jesus Christ which lacks knowledge of Biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).
--
*Matthew 18:10 / *Mt. 18:10 -
This could mean that literal little children (Matthew 18:2) who are believers in Jesus Christ -- as well as adult Christians who have figuratively become like little children in their humility (Matthew 18:3-4) -- are so precious to God that their guardian angels are given continual access to Him in heaven.
--
*Matthew 18:12-14 / *Mt. 18:12 -
(Re: Wandering *sheep)
This gives Christians the assurance that Jesus Christ their good shepherd (John 10:14) will seek them out if they wander away, such as into false teachings or sins (James 5:19-20). But it is still possible for Christians to ultimately lose their salvation, if, after they go astray and Jesus comes after them, they wrongly employ their free will to reject His advances, such as by committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b), or unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29, Luke 12:45-46; 1 Corinthians 9:27), or if they become utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8).
(See also the "NOSAS" section of Hebrews 3:6 below)
--
*Matthew 18:17 / *Mt. 18:17 -
See Romans 13:1 below.
--
*Matthew 18:19 / *Mt. 18:19 -
This is qualified by 1 John 5:14, 1 John 3:22, James 4:3, and James 1:6-7.
~
In Matthew 18:19 the principle of Christians getting what they pray for is applicable even outside of its context of Matthew 18:15-20. For the same principle is taught repeatedly elsewhere (Matthew 21:22, Matthew 7:7-8, John 14:13-14, John 15:16b, John 16:23-24). The point of such verses is to encourage Christians to pray, for "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2); and to pray with faith (James 1:6-7).
(See also Luke 11:1 below)
--
*Matthew 19:9 / *Mt. 19:9 -
(See Mark 10:11 below)
(Re: Does *inappropriate contenteia here include adultery?)
The Greek word "inappropriate contenteia" (G4202) can be used sometimes to refer only to pre-marital sex. For example, someone could say: "She committed inappropriate contenteia before she got married, but she has not committed adultery". In the same way, in Matthew 19:9, inappropriate contenteia, translated as "fornication", is used only in the sense of pre-marital sex, as distinguished from Matthew 19:9's separate reference to the Greek word "moichao" (G3429), translated as "adultery". See also Matthew 15:19, Matthew 5:32, Mark 7:21, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Galatians 5:19, where inappropriate contenteia ("fornication") is used in a way which distinguishes it from moichao ("adultery").
If God allowed divorce for adultery, this would give married people the incentive to commit adultery if they wanted to marry someone else. For they could think: "I cannot stand this marriage, but I would love to marry that other person. All I have to do is commit adultery with that other person in a way that my spouse finds out and divorces me. Then I can marry that other person, and, Voilà, it is no longer adultery!" Such a mistaken, awful idea can only lead to more adultery and more broken marriages.
~
(Re: Two wives)
A woman divorced from a valid husband for not being a virgin (Matthew 19:9) cannot marry someone else (Luke 16:18b), for she is still married in God's eyes to her husband. But this does not prevent her husband, after divorcing her for not being a virgin, from marrying another woman who is a virgin. But then in God's eyes, he will be married to two women at the same time, which while no Bible verse requires is a sin in itself, because it is not the best situation it disqualifies him from taking any leadership positions in the Church (1 Timothy 3:2,12).
~
(Re: Why are men not allowed to divorce for adultery, but only for pre-marital fornication?)
Just as a Christian man at the point of his initial salvation is espoused spiritually as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2), so a man has the right to expect that his wife is a chaste virgin at the time of their wedding (Matthew 19:9). But just as a Christian man after his initial salvation cannot guarantee to Jesus Christ that he will never commit adultery with the world (James 4:4), so he cannot expect that his wife will never commit adultery with another man.
--
*Matthew 19:10-12 / *Mt. 19:10 -
(Re: *Celibacy)
(See 1 Corinthians 7:7 below)
In Matthew 19:10-12, Jesus Christ is agreeing with His disciples that it is better for a Christian not to get married, if a Christian can handle being celibate (1 Corinthians 7:7-9). Jesus used eunuchs (castrated men) to represent those Christians who give up marriage (even without being castrated), so that they can serve Jesus without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:32-35, Revelation 14:4).
--
*Matthew 19:16-19 / *Mt. 19:16 -
This does not mean that Christians after Jesus Christ's Cross have to keep any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's ministration of death, engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Romans 7:6). Also, even before the Cross, when Jesus was asked which Old Covenant commandments had to be kept for eternal life, He only said five of the Ten Commandments had to be kept (Matthew 19:18-19a), and that one other Old Covenant commandment which was not one of the Ten Commandments also had to be kept (Matthew 19:19b, Leviticus 19:18). And elsewhere, when Jesus lists the Old Covenant's two greatest commandments, neither of them are from the Ten Commandments (Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:29-31). He answered in these ways because loving others (both God and people) fulfills the spirit of every Old Covenant commandment (Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 7:12).
(See also the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Matthew 19:17 / *Mt. 19:17 -
Jesus Christ allowed people to call Him God (John 20:28), and He affirmed that He is good (John 10:11) and one with God (John 10:30). So the point of His question in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19 was not to deny that He is God or good, but "why" was the man calling him good. Jesus knew that the man did not believe that Jesus was God. So Jesus was warning him not to just go around calling different people good, but to call only God good.
~
(Re: When Jesus asked in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19: "Why callest thou me good?", the original Greek word translated as "good" is "agathos"/G0018. But in John 10:11,14 the original Greek word used to refer to the "good" shepherd is “kalos"/G2570)
Note that to imply that Jesus Christ is not "good" (agathos: G0018) "in any sense" (Strong's Greek Dictionary) is blasphemy.
For even some non-divine humans can be referred to (even by Jesus) as "good" (agathos) (Matthew 5:45, Matthew 22:10, Matthew 25:21,23, Luke 6:45, Luke 19:17, Luke 23:50, Acts 11:24, Titus 2:5). So how much more the only human who is without sin (Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21)?
(See also John 1:1 below)
~
(Re: Means that we cannot do good?)
The fact that no one is perfectly good but God (Matthew 19:17) does not contradict that Christians can do good works (e.g. Matthew 5:16, Titus 3:8,14; 2 Timothy 3:17).
--
*Matthew 19:28 / *Mt. 19:28 -
This and Luke 22:30 refer to the future, physical aspect of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on the earth with the physically resurrected Church during the future Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), which will not begin until after Jesus' future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21). During the Millennium, the twelve apostles will "judge" the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30) in the sense of ongoing rule, like how the "judges" ruled Israel in the sense of ongoing rule in the book of Judges in the Old Testament.
Also, Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 are not contradicting...
(See the "Tribes" section of Romans 11:17 below. Also, see Acts 1:6 below)
--
*Matthew 20:1 / *Mt. 20:1 -
The original Greek word (oikodespotes: G3617) translated as "householder", like the English word, can mean the head of a household.
--
*Matthew 20:2 / *Mt. 20:2 -
The original Greek word (denarion: G1220) translated as "penny" referred to a silver coin worth a day's wages.
--
*Matthew 20:11 / *Mt. 20:11 -
The original Greek word (oikodespotes: G3617) translated as "goodman of the house" was translated in Matthew 20:1 as "householder".
--
*Matthew 20:15 / *Mt. 20:15 -
(Re: An *evil eye)
Here the idea of having an evil eye has to do with covetousness (Matthew 6:21-24), in this case in both senses of the word: basic greed (1 Timothy 6:10), and the desire for what someone else has (Exodus 20:17). It can also relate to greediness in the sense of a lack of charity toward the poor (Deuteronomy 15:9), or simply a lack of generosity or hospitality (Proverbs 23:6). So the eye is "evil" in the sense that it is wrongly focused against someone who either has something which you want for yourself, or needs something of yours which you want to keep for yourself.
A superstitious version of the idea of the "evil eye" exists today in the Middle East, and in some other cultures, where it is common to believe that certain people just by gazing at you enviously have the power (whether conscious to them or not) to cause you misfortune, such as the loss of your wealth to robbers; or to cause you physical harm, such as getting sick or having an accident. People even employ amulets to magically "ward off" the evil eye. People can also purposely avoid any ostentatious, public displays of their wealth to avoid inciting envy in any passerby who might have the power of "the evil eye".
--
*Matthew 21:7 / *Mt. 21:7 -
Here, "and they set him thereon" in the original Greek literally says: "and they set him on them". And the word for "them" is plural, and masculine (like the colt), while the word for their "clothes" is neuter. So "they set him on them" could mean that the disciples sat Jesus Christ on both the masculine colt and the neuter clothes draped over the colt. Or, it could mean that the disciples sat Jesus on both animals, after draping both animals with their clothes. This would not require that Jesus sat on both animals at the same time, but that He sat on both, one after the other, perhaps after one showed itself reluctant (or too weak) to carry Him. Jesus' sitting on both animals could have pictured both of His comings, the first at that time, and His Second Coming in our future, when He will literally descend from heaven on a white horse (Revelation 19:11).
--
*Matthew 21:19 / *Mt. 21:19 -
Jesus Christ's cursing of the literal, fruitless fig tree (Matthew 21:19) foreshadowed His curse on the part of Old Covenant Israel which rejected Him (Matthew 21:43), for a fig tree can represent Israel (Hosea 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Luke 13:6-9).
(See also paragraph 2 of Matthew 24:34 below)
--
*Matthew 21:21 / *Mt. 21:21 -
This can refer to a literal mountain, just as it refers to a literal fig tree (Matthew 21:19-21).
--
*Matthew 21:22 / *Mt. 21:22 -
(Re: I am a non-Christian who wants to be a Christian, and has tried praying to get *faith in Jesus Christ, but this has not helped me so far)
Faith in Jesus Christ comes to people as they read the Bible, or listen to someone reading the Bible out loud (Romans 10:17), whether in person or in a recording.
Regarding praying, that might help remove a doubt in a Christian (Mark 9:24), or increase a Christian's faith (Luke 17:5). But a non-Christian praying cannot bring him into faith in Jesus Christ, because a person has to already have faith in Jesus Christ for his prayers to be answered (Matthew 21:22, John 15:5b, John 14:14).
(But see Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Matthew 21:43 / *Mt. 21:43 -
This is addressing non-Christian, nonelect Jews, whom God does not consider to be the true Israel (Romans 9:6-24), or true Jews (Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3), or true children of Abraham or of God, but the children of Satan (John 8:39-47, Revelation 3:9, Revelation 2:9b); just as all nonelect people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are considered by God to be the children of Satan (Matthew 13:38-42, cf. 1 John 3:8-10).
The nation in Matthew 21:43b is the Church (1 Peter 2:9), which includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians (1 Corinthians 12:13). And this nation will come to include those elect Jews who will become Christians at any point in the future, including at Jesus Christ's Second Coming (Romans 11:25-29).
(See Romans 11:25 below)
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 1, 2018
Are you referring to Matthew 16:27, 2 Timothy 4:1, Acts 17:31, and Acts 24:15,25? If so, the KJV does translate the original Greek word "mello" (G3195) in those verses as "shall", or "to come". But those verses did not require that Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming was "about to" happen from the viewpoint of people in the first century AD. For Acts 26:22-23 employs mello (translated as "should") to refer even to Moses' prophesying of the first coming of Christ (Deuteronomy 18:18-19, Acts 3:22-24), which prophesying occurred some 1,400 years before Christ's first coming.
Also, according to your view, when was the fulfillment of Acts 24:15, which uses mello?
Also, are you referring to Revelation 12:5? If so, the KJV does translate the original Greek word "mello' (G3195) there as "was". But Revelation 12:5 does not refer to Jesus' Christ's Second Coming per se.
(See Revelation 12:5 below. Also, see the "Soon" section of Revelation 1:1 below)
--
*Matthew 16:28 / *Mt. 16:28 -
(Re: The *transfiguration)
The transfiguration of Jesus Christ was a coming of the Kingdom of God with power (Mark 9:1-9, Luke 9:27-36) in the same sense that Jesus' previous and subsequent casting out of devils was a coming of the Kingdom of God with power (Matthew 12:28, Luke 11:20). That is, such events showed that God's power had come to the earth in the person of Jesus Christ at His first coming.
So Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled at the subsequent transfiguration (Matthew 16:28 to 17:9, Luke 9:27-36, Mark 9:1-9; 2 Peter 1:16-18). Just as the "power", "coming", and "majesty" in 2 Peter 1:16 refer to the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:17-18, so the "power", "coming", and "kingdom" in Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28, and Luke 9:27 refer to the subsequent transfiguration in Mark 9:2-9, Matthew 17:1-9, and Luke 9:28-36.
Regarding Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming in Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38...
(See Acts 1:11 below)
~
Jesus Christ's assurance in Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 was not inane. For people almost always have no assurance that they will still be alive tomorrow (James 4:14, Luke 12:20), much less in about a week's time (Matthew 17:1, Luke 9:28, Mark 9:2).
~
(Re: Does Christian Futurism fail to take Jesus' statement at face value?)
Christian Futurism does take Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 at face value, just as it is Christian Futurism which almost always takes Bible prophecies, such as Second-Coming verses, at face value, in the sense of literally, so much so that preterism (mistakenly) mocks Christian Futurism for its literalism.
~
(Re: Is Jesus' statement referring to the preceding verse?)
No, Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 are not referring to the preceding verse, but to the following verses. For Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38 have not been fulfilled yet.
~
(Re: "Verily" refers to an application of teaching previously spoken, not subsequently)
The transfiguration of Jesus Christ was a literal application of the literal teaching previously spoken in Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38. For 2 Peter 1:16-18 refers to the transfiguration, which was the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1. And the transfiguration showed what Jesus' "own glory" (Luke 9:26) at His future, Second Coming in Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26, and Mark 8:38 will literally look like to everyone when they will literally see Him at His Second Coming (Matthew 24:30, Revelation 1:7). That is, just as at the transfiguration, Jesus' "face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light" (Matthew 17:2), so He will appear to everyone that way at His Second Coming. Also, the transfiguration showed what the glory of the angels (Luke 9:26) who will come with Jesus at His Second Coming in Matthew 16:27, Matthew 24:30-31, Luke 9:26, Mark 8:38, and Mark 13:26-27 will literally look like to everyone when the Second Coming is fulfilled. For Elijah and Moses were seen "in glory" at the transfiguration (Luke 9:30-31); and even human "messengers", like how Elijah and Moses are human messengers of God, can be referred to as "angels" (cf. Luke 7:24 in the original Greek).
--
*Matthew 17:4 / *Mt. 17:4 -
The apostle Peter could have known who he was seeing in Matthew 17:4 by Jesus Christ having addressed Moses and Elijah by name while talking with them in Matthew 17:3.
--
*Matthew 17:9 / *Mt. 17:9 -
Here the original Greek word (horama: G3705) translated as "vision" can refer to an actual occurrence, for it simply means something which is seen (cf. Mark 9:9, Luke 9:36). Just as Moses' "sight" (horama) of the burning bush (Acts 7:31) actually happened (Exodus 3:2 to 4:17), so the apostles' "vision" of (Matthew 17:9), their "seeing" (Mark 9:9, Luke 9:36) Moses and Elijah could have actually happened. Moses and Elijah could have been sent down physically from heaven by God to speak with Jesus Christ about His impending death (Luke 9:30-31). They could have been sent to encourage Jesus, like God later sent an angel to strengthen Jesus before His death (Luke 22:43). And Moses and Elijah could be sent physically to the earth again, at the midpoint of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, to be God's Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:3, and to perform the same miracles of judgment (Revelation 11:6) which they performed back in Old Testament times (James 5:17, Exodus 7:20).
(See Revelation 11:3 below)
--
*Matthew 17:10-13 / *Mt. 17:10 / *Mt. 17:11 -
(Re: Will Jesus return like *Elijah did?)
Regarding "like Elijah did", are you referring to Matthew 17:10-13? If so, that passage can be understood as referring to two different comings of Elijah, the first being John the Baptist's coming "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17, Matthew 17:12-13), and the second being a still-future, physical coming-back of Elijah himself, when he will restore all things (Matthew 17:11), in the sense of restoring all true doctrine -- that is, all true interpretation of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16) -- to the earth. This still-future, physical coming-back of Elijah himself could occur at the midpoint of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, when Elijah could come back physically from heaven as one of God's Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:3-12.
(See Revelation 11:3 and Acts 1:11 below)
Christians need to be wary of future, false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:24) who could claim that they are a coming of Jesus (Matthew 24:26) in the same, spiritual sense that John the Baptist was a coming of Elijah (Luke 1:17, Matthew 17:12-13).
And, even more problematically, Christians need to be wary of any future, false Jesus who will claim to be a "reincarnation" of Jesus. (There is even already a new Netflix show which purports to be about a boy who is a reincarnation of Jesus.)
(See also Revelation 13:4 and Revelation 13:11 below)
--
*Matthew 17:12 / *Mt. 17:12 -
This refers to the martyrdom of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:13, Matthew 14:10), and the subsequent martyrdom of Jesus Christ (the Son of man).
--
*Matthew 17:19-21 / *Mt. 17:19 -
This does not require (as is sometimes claimed) that its "mountain" is an evil spirit rather than a literal mountain; just as, for example, Hosea 4:12-13 does not require that its "mountains" are evil spirits rather than literal mountains. Similarly, Revelation 21:10, 2 Kings 2:16, Isaiah 40:12-13, and Ezekiel 11:23 do not require that their "mountains" are God's Holy Spirit rather than literal mountains.
--
*Matthew 18:2-4 / *Mt. 18:2 -
This refers to a childlike humility, not to a faith in Jesus Christ which lacks knowledge of Biblical doctrine (Matthew 4:4; 2 Peter 1:5; 1 Timothy 4:16). Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:20 refers to a childlike lack of malice, not to a faith in Jesus Christ which lacks knowledge of Biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).
--
*Matthew 18:10 / *Mt. 18:10 -
This could mean that literal little children (Matthew 18:2) who are believers in Jesus Christ -- as well as adult Christians who have figuratively become like little children in their humility (Matthew 18:3-4) -- are so precious to God that their guardian angels are given continual access to Him in heaven.
--
*Matthew 18:12-14 / *Mt. 18:12 -
(Re: Wandering *sheep)
This gives Christians the assurance that Jesus Christ their good shepherd (John 10:14) will seek them out if they wander away, such as into false teachings or sins (James 5:19-20). But it is still possible for Christians to ultimately lose their salvation, if, after they go astray and Jesus comes after them, they wrongly employ their free will to reject His advances, such as by committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b), or unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29, Luke 12:45-46; 1 Corinthians 9:27), or if they become utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8).
(See also the "NOSAS" section of Hebrews 3:6 below)
--
*Matthew 18:17 / *Mt. 18:17 -
See Romans 13:1 below.
--
*Matthew 18:19 / *Mt. 18:19 -
This is qualified by 1 John 5:14, 1 John 3:22, James 4:3, and James 1:6-7.
~
In Matthew 18:19 the principle of Christians getting what they pray for is applicable even outside of its context of Matthew 18:15-20. For the same principle is taught repeatedly elsewhere (Matthew 21:22, Matthew 7:7-8, John 14:13-14, John 15:16b, John 16:23-24). The point of such verses is to encourage Christians to pray, for "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2); and to pray with faith (James 1:6-7).
(See also Luke 11:1 below)
--
*Matthew 19:9 / *Mt. 19:9 -
(See Mark 10:11 below)
(Re: Does *inappropriate contenteia here include adultery?)
The Greek word "inappropriate contenteia" (G4202) can be used sometimes to refer only to pre-marital sex. For example, someone could say: "She committed inappropriate contenteia before she got married, but she has not committed adultery". In the same way, in Matthew 19:9, inappropriate contenteia, translated as "fornication", is used only in the sense of pre-marital sex, as distinguished from Matthew 19:9's separate reference to the Greek word "moichao" (G3429), translated as "adultery". See also Matthew 15:19, Matthew 5:32, Mark 7:21, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Galatians 5:19, where inappropriate contenteia ("fornication") is used in a way which distinguishes it from moichao ("adultery").
If God allowed divorce for adultery, this would give married people the incentive to commit adultery if they wanted to marry someone else. For they could think: "I cannot stand this marriage, but I would love to marry that other person. All I have to do is commit adultery with that other person in a way that my spouse finds out and divorces me. Then I can marry that other person, and, Voilà, it is no longer adultery!" Such a mistaken, awful idea can only lead to more adultery and more broken marriages.
~
(Re: Two wives)
A woman divorced from a valid husband for not being a virgin (Matthew 19:9) cannot marry someone else (Luke 16:18b), for she is still married in God's eyes to her husband. But this does not prevent her husband, after divorcing her for not being a virgin, from marrying another woman who is a virgin. But then in God's eyes, he will be married to two women at the same time, which while no Bible verse requires is a sin in itself, because it is not the best situation it disqualifies him from taking any leadership positions in the Church (1 Timothy 3:2,12).
~
(Re: Why are men not allowed to divorce for adultery, but only for pre-marital fornication?)
Just as a Christian man at the point of his initial salvation is espoused spiritually as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2), so a man has the right to expect that his wife is a chaste virgin at the time of their wedding (Matthew 19:9). But just as a Christian man after his initial salvation cannot guarantee to Jesus Christ that he will never commit adultery with the world (James 4:4), so he cannot expect that his wife will never commit adultery with another man.
--
*Matthew 19:10-12 / *Mt. 19:10 -
(Re: *Celibacy)
(See 1 Corinthians 7:7 below)
In Matthew 19:10-12, Jesus Christ is agreeing with His disciples that it is better for a Christian not to get married, if a Christian can handle being celibate (1 Corinthians 7:7-9). Jesus used eunuchs (castrated men) to represent those Christians who give up marriage (even without being castrated), so that they can serve Jesus without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:32-35, Revelation 14:4).
--
*Matthew 19:16-19 / *Mt. 19:16 -
This does not mean that Christians after Jesus Christ's Cross have to keep any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's ministration of death, engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Romans 7:6). Also, even before the Cross, when Jesus was asked which Old Covenant commandments had to be kept for eternal life, He only said five of the Ten Commandments had to be kept (Matthew 19:18-19a), and that one other Old Covenant commandment which was not one of the Ten Commandments also had to be kept (Matthew 19:19b, Leviticus 19:18). And elsewhere, when Jesus lists the Old Covenant's two greatest commandments, neither of them are from the Ten Commandments (Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:29-31). He answered in these ways because loving others (both God and people) fulfills the spirit of every Old Covenant commandment (Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 7:12).
(See also the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Matthew 19:17 / *Mt. 19:17 -
Jesus Christ allowed people to call Him God (John 20:28), and He affirmed that He is good (John 10:11) and one with God (John 10:30). So the point of His question in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19 was not to deny that He is God or good, but "why" was the man calling him good. Jesus knew that the man did not believe that Jesus was God. So Jesus was warning him not to just go around calling different people good, but to call only God good.
~
(Re: When Jesus asked in Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19: "Why callest thou me good?", the original Greek word translated as "good" is "agathos"/G0018. But in John 10:11,14 the original Greek word used to refer to the "good" shepherd is “kalos"/G2570)
Note that to imply that Jesus Christ is not "good" (agathos: G0018) "in any sense" (Strong's Greek Dictionary) is blasphemy.
For even some non-divine humans can be referred to (even by Jesus) as "good" (agathos) (Matthew 5:45, Matthew 22:10, Matthew 25:21,23, Luke 6:45, Luke 19:17, Luke 23:50, Acts 11:24, Titus 2:5). So how much more the only human who is without sin (Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21)?
(See also John 1:1 below)
~
(Re: Means that we cannot do good?)
The fact that no one is perfectly good but God (Matthew 19:17) does not contradict that Christians can do good works (e.g. Matthew 5:16, Titus 3:8,14; 2 Timothy 3:17).
--
*Matthew 19:28 / *Mt. 19:28 -
This and Luke 22:30 refer to the future, physical aspect of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on the earth with the physically resurrected Church during the future Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), which will not begin until after Jesus' future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21). During the Millennium, the twelve apostles will "judge" the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30) in the sense of ongoing rule, like how the "judges" ruled Israel in the sense of ongoing rule in the book of Judges in the Old Testament.
Also, Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 are not contradicting...
(See the "Tribes" section of Romans 11:17 below. Also, see Acts 1:6 below)
--
*Matthew 20:1 / *Mt. 20:1 -
The original Greek word (oikodespotes: G3617) translated as "householder", like the English word, can mean the head of a household.
--
*Matthew 20:2 / *Mt. 20:2 -
The original Greek word (denarion: G1220) translated as "penny" referred to a silver coin worth a day's wages.
--
*Matthew 20:11 / *Mt. 20:11 -
The original Greek word (oikodespotes: G3617) translated as "goodman of the house" was translated in Matthew 20:1 as "householder".
--
*Matthew 20:15 / *Mt. 20:15 -
(Re: An *evil eye)
Here the idea of having an evil eye has to do with covetousness (Matthew 6:21-24), in this case in both senses of the word: basic greed (1 Timothy 6:10), and the desire for what someone else has (Exodus 20:17). It can also relate to greediness in the sense of a lack of charity toward the poor (Deuteronomy 15:9), or simply a lack of generosity or hospitality (Proverbs 23:6). So the eye is "evil" in the sense that it is wrongly focused against someone who either has something which you want for yourself, or needs something of yours which you want to keep for yourself.
A superstitious version of the idea of the "evil eye" exists today in the Middle East, and in some other cultures, where it is common to believe that certain people just by gazing at you enviously have the power (whether conscious to them or not) to cause you misfortune, such as the loss of your wealth to robbers; or to cause you physical harm, such as getting sick or having an accident. People even employ amulets to magically "ward off" the evil eye. People can also purposely avoid any ostentatious, public displays of their wealth to avoid inciting envy in any passerby who might have the power of "the evil eye".
--
*Matthew 21:7 / *Mt. 21:7 -
Here, "and they set him thereon" in the original Greek literally says: "and they set him on them". And the word for "them" is plural, and masculine (like the colt), while the word for their "clothes" is neuter. So "they set him on them" could mean that the disciples sat Jesus Christ on both the masculine colt and the neuter clothes draped over the colt. Or, it could mean that the disciples sat Jesus on both animals, after draping both animals with their clothes. This would not require that Jesus sat on both animals at the same time, but that He sat on both, one after the other, perhaps after one showed itself reluctant (or too weak) to carry Him. Jesus' sitting on both animals could have pictured both of His comings, the first at that time, and His Second Coming in our future, when He will literally descend from heaven on a white horse (Revelation 19:11).
--
*Matthew 21:19 / *Mt. 21:19 -
Jesus Christ's cursing of the literal, fruitless fig tree (Matthew 21:19) foreshadowed His curse on the part of Old Covenant Israel which rejected Him (Matthew 21:43), for a fig tree can represent Israel (Hosea 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Luke 13:6-9).
(See also paragraph 2 of Matthew 24:34 below)
--
*Matthew 21:21 / *Mt. 21:21 -
This can refer to a literal mountain, just as it refers to a literal fig tree (Matthew 21:19-21).
--
*Matthew 21:22 / *Mt. 21:22 -
(Re: I am a non-Christian who wants to be a Christian, and has tried praying to get *faith in Jesus Christ, but this has not helped me so far)
Faith in Jesus Christ comes to people as they read the Bible, or listen to someone reading the Bible out loud (Romans 10:17), whether in person or in a recording.
Regarding praying, that might help remove a doubt in a Christian (Mark 9:24), or increase a Christian's faith (Luke 17:5). But a non-Christian praying cannot bring him into faith in Jesus Christ, because a person has to already have faith in Jesus Christ for his prayers to be answered (Matthew 21:22, John 15:5b, John 14:14).
(But see Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Matthew 21:43 / *Mt. 21:43 -
This is addressing non-Christian, nonelect Jews, whom God does not consider to be the true Israel (Romans 9:6-24), or true Jews (Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3), or true children of Abraham or of God, but the children of Satan (John 8:39-47, Revelation 3:9, Revelation 2:9b); just as all nonelect people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are considered by God to be the children of Satan (Matthew 13:38-42, cf. 1 John 3:8-10).
The nation in Matthew 21:43b is the Church (1 Peter 2:9), which includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians (1 Corinthians 12:13). And this nation will come to include those elect Jews who will become Christians at any point in the future, including at Jesus Christ's Second Coming (Romans 11:25-29).
(See Romans 11:25 below)
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 1, 2018
