Tagged: Matthew Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Ron Thomas 8:00 am on June 3, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , leaven, Matthew, ,   

    Perception is NOT Reality Sometimes 

    We have heard it many times that one’s perception is reality. This is not the case, however. At least, it is not the case all the time. The word perceived means to attain awareness or understanding. When people look at an event in life there is an interpretation of that event that brings about a perceived understanding. For instance, I see two people fussing over something; I interpret that which I see, and then gain understanding with regard to the situation. My understanding may be complete or incomplete, but that is what I perceived in what I saw. If there is no correction to what understanding I gained, then that perception (awareness, understanding) becomes, to a degree, reality.

    Moses and Aaron went to Egypt’s king, but as they went, they were met by the elders of Israel who were returning from having seen the king. When they met, they heard these words from their brethren, “The LORD look on you and judge, because you have made us stink in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants, and have put a sword in their hand to kill us” (Exodus 5:21, ESV). The elders of Israel perceived a situation with which they had direct experience, and they interpreted it as something that needed to be laid at the feet of Moses and Aaron. Moses and Aaron, having heard these words, also interpreted (perceived) the situation and wondered aloud to the Lord.

    This goes to point out that perception is not always reality. In other words, that with which one may come away may not actually be how the situation really is. The elders misperceived the situation. The Lord knew full-well the “whys” and “wherefores.”

    It is a difficult thing for us to judge as we ought to; it is not that we can’t judge correctly, only that we are apt to judge or conclude before we actually know the relevant information needed to judge properly. The Lord called upon the people of His day to judge righteously (John 7:24); this means that before a person can rightly interpret he needs all the relevant information, for without it his judgment will be incomplete.

    There is another example in Scripture, this time pertaining to the apostles when they were with Jesus (Matthew 16:1-12). Jesus had recently interacted with the religious leaders and called into question the correctness of their interpretation; in fact, He said they were quite capable of judging the atmospheric weather about them, but because of their lack of true understanding in scriptural matters, they could not judge properly those things that surround Him (16:1-4). After this brief interaction, Jesus is with His disciples when He called upon them to understand that leaven can be a dangerous thing. The disciples did not catch on; they were thinking about physical food when the Lord meant for them to understand His remark metaphorically (or spiritually). It was not that long ago that the Lord fed thousands, but the disciples had their minds on one thing, and forgot the other. In other words, they allowed the word leaven to throw them off in their understanding.

    This is, often times, why it is that we fail to interpret (perceive) accurately. We have our minds on one thing and the “car that drove within five feet of us” was not even seen! What makes this matter unfortunate for Christians is not only the failure to understand something in the immediate, but also that one might very well fail to understand something the Lord wants His saints to perceive (understand) accurately—and knows that one can if desired and focused. RT

     
  • Ron Thomas 7:00 am on April 9, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: abundance, Matthew, , secular righteousness   

    Out of the Abundance 

         The Lord speaks an axiom: “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34, NKJV). From the heart comes the issues of life (cf. Proverbs 4:23). Exactly what those issues are will manifest itself in due time. Whatever your occupation, hobby, or interests might be—if any of these things take a priority in your life, why should you expect the Lord to take an interest in you?

    You can be a scientist, a teacher, a banker, or even a preacher; if these things that are done encourage you to lose site of Him who is all-important, then blindness settles in. People speak about what is important to them. The Lord gave us what is important to Him. If we prioritize our thinking over His, then end result is catastrophic for those who do.

    When a man does not protect that which belongs to him (his heart), then that which belongs to him will be affected by those evil influences on the outside. Secular education is important, but it has, unfortunately, turned into our own “secular righteousness.” Thus, the abundance that comes from the heart can be secular “righteousness” or godly righteousness.

    On can’t help but to speak about that which resides inside. On Sunday morning it is easy to see what people want others to see, but when you post (or share things) on facebook what you would not say in “polite company”, then others learn who has your heart. RT

     
  • Ron Thomas 7:00 am on April 8, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: limited commission, Matthew, , tires   

    ARE YOU WORTHY? 

         In Matthew 10 the Lord give what is known as the “limited commission” to His disciples. They were to go throughout Israel preaching the kingdom (10:7) and, before they were finished the Lord would follow them in His own preaching (10:23). It was in this context that the Lord said something about those who were (are) worthy of God.

    Persecution is tough for anyone to have to experience. Persecution, however, has a quality that only it can produce; it purges the “dross” inside the soul from actual attachment to the soul (dross corrupts). Jesus identifies some things that can be considered “dross.”

    If one loves his (her) parents more than the Lord, that one is not worthy of the Lord (10:37). We love parents, but our parents will do nothing for us with regard to our relationship to the Lord. It has to be our individual decision to serve God—regardless of what our parents might have done.

    If one does not take the cross of Christ and carry it, that one is not worthy of the Lord (10:38). To take the cross of Christ means that one lives the life of Christ (Galatians 2:20). This is much easier to understand than to do—but doing it is crucial.

    If one preserves his life and by doing so lets go of anything associated with the Lord, that one is not worthy of Jesus (10:39). Related to this is that which we value more. If we value self-preservation more than the Lord, then the Lord will value us less.

    Each one of these three points can be described as when “the rubber meets the road.” Now that the rubber has met the road will you apply hard the brakes, spin the tires, and burn rubber or will you decide for the Lord and move forward? RT

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 28 

    In the first chapter an angel visits Mary and then Joseph. In this chapter an angel visit the women. Matthew has “bookends” with an angel visiting women. Now how is that for a “Jewish” gospel in a “man’s” world?!

    ****

    The women come to the tomb for anointing purposes and meet an angel that frightened them, I suppose, beyond anything measurable they have yet to experience in life. Yet, the Lord’s servant tells each to fear not. What a word of encouragement, but yet, how could they not fear with such an out-of-this-world being? That fear turns from encouragement (to not fear) to excitement when they learn that the Lord is raised. To make their excitement all the more intense, the risen Lord speaks to them. I can’t imagine what it would have been like!

    ****

    To the eleven disciple (then twelve, Acts 1), the Lord gave His great commission. They (the apostles) were to go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. The excitement the women experienced now belongs to the Lord’s chosen disciples, but with that excitement there is a serious charge. Is this our charge also? To the eleven He gave these words, but how else will we teach men but that we do the same?

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 27 

    When one thinks about Judas the question that comes to mind is “Why?” Why did he think it was okay to betray, and what did he think was going to come of this since he knew that Jesus came from heaven? It is astounding when one thinks about it. However, is it much different than when Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt and they continued to complain against him (so they thought), but in actuality they complained against the Lord? It is really not different at all. When one is bent on thinking and doing evil, why let anything of the Lord get in the way?!

    ****

    Some of us have an unfavorable opinion of some politicians today. Our unfavorable view of these men and women is associated with their willingness to lay principles of righteousness to the side in order to put themselves in favor with a portion of the population if they think it will help for their reelection. I wonder if any of them ever knew Pilate personally (27:18, 24; 28:11-14)!

    ****

    The thief on the cross and his conversion is a perplexing thing. Matthew records that both thieves crucified alongside the Lord “reviled Him.” Luke, however, says that one of those two rebuked the other (23:40-42). What shall we make of that? Perhaps something like this occurred: As all three were hanging there the angst, anxiety, and intense pain was contributed to what each thought and said. Those standing there may have made a contribution to the thinking and reviling the thieves made toward the Lord. There may have been a contribution, but a contribution that did not control the thinking of one. As one reflected on what he knew of the Lord (if he knew anything), on what he heard others say who were standing nearby, how he observed what Rome did in executing this punishment, he had a change of heart. This change of heart produced in him a change of words. As Matthew records it, the thief reviled the Lord; as Luke records it, the thief now thought differently. 

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 27, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 26 

    I have always been impressed with the Lord’s words concerning an act of devotion by a woman (26:11). What impresses me most is how Mark records it. “She has done what she could” (Mark 14:8).  It may be that some saints feel as if they can do nothing in comparison with other saints; I would encourage them, however, to not make such comparisons. It is not a matter of what one can do in comparison with another, but did she (he) do what he (she) could do?

    ****

    It is terribly unfortunate if one thinks that because we have the poor with us always that somehow justifies not tending to the needs of those saints who are poor.

    ****

    Would you betray the Son of Man for a month’s wage, as Judas did? When the Lord said to his disciples that one around the table was actually guilty (26:23) no one could possibly understand such an egregious act being contemplated, so they ask the Lord “Is it I?” Judas asked the same question. I wonder why? Was his guilt so over-powering that in order to alleviate any suspicion by the others he asked the Lord the same? I suspect that is the case. How disappointed, dispiriting, and sunk he felt when the Lord replied!

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 25 

    Preparation is always easy to understand, but unfortunately is seems to be more difficult to apply. There is a reason for that: “I have time.” With regard to the Lord many think they have time because they are, in part, looking for the signs of the Lord’s return; sign of the times, you might say. Why shouldn’t they? They have heard from premillennialists that there are signs to occur when the Lord returns, and they could just wait till then. It appears, however, that five of the virgins anticipated incorrectly the time of the bridegrooms return!

    ****

    The “talents” of this chapter do not pertain to one’s ability. Thus, when one says: “My talent is to play the guitar” or, another says: “My talent is to sing songs to the Lord” misses the point of what we are to understand. What’s the point? How well did you work with that which your Lord gave to you? Did you seek to manage well that which belongs to another, or did you seek to keep that which belongs to another for your own purposes? Take note of the “name” of the servant (25:30). Another point to remember: the Lord of these servants knew well the capability of the particular servants; there was an expectation along with the responsibility given. Don’t judge what other servant do or can’t do; be sure you do what you ought to do.

    ****

    Preparation, Propriety, and Punishment

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 24 

    The reading of this chapter brings images to the head that are utterly fantastic. Will it actually be the case that not even two stones will be on top of another when the destruction described by Jesus occurs? What are we to understand in these words? In 24:14 we read that there is a certain point when the end will come. What end? To properly understand the chapter, let us take note of the questions the disciples asked: 1) Tell us when these things will be, 2) What will be the sign of your coming, and 3) the end of that age. It’s possible that numbers 2 and 3 could be combined into one question, but I am not inclined to think that is accurate. In Mark (13:4), there are only two questions: 1) Tell us when…, 2) What will be the sign when these things are fulfilled (also in Luke 21:7). It’s in Matthew that we read this 3rd question concerning the end of the age (the ASV uses “world,” as does the KJV, CEV, and Hugo McCord (or FHV)). To answer the question we asked (based on 24:14) let us consider that 24:21-22 gives us a “termination” of sorts. In other words, the days will be shortened (or, they will come to completion), and there will be days following that are not associated with a tribulation that Jesus speaks about (24:29) – though there are signs that are significant (24:29-31). You couple all this with the Lord’s word in 24:34 and we learn the “termination” point of the first two questions. The word generation has posed some interpretive difficulties for exegetes. Did Jesus refer to the Jewish nation, or did He refer to the people to whom He spoke? When He said this generation, it seems He limited it to the latter (the context determines this). Those who think it refers to the former generally follow the dispensational/premillennial view. Those who heard Jesus’ words understood well what He meant. The third question the disciples asked is answered in 24:36-44.

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 23 

    The Lord gave stinging rebukes to the religious leaders of His day, but those things they were guilty of, we might ask, is it exclusive to them? Take hypocrisy, for instance. Is that a vice exclusive to them, or is it something with which all struggle now and again? Perhaps some have a better handle on it than others, but a struggle is a struggle regardless of the intensity and frequency.

    ****

    In our modern religious parlance, if there is ever a disregard for the words of Jesus it is those of the Episcopalian and Catholic religions. Jesus made it very clear that no man is to call another man “father” in a religious context (23:9) for there is only one Father, and He is in heaven. How do our Catholic friends handle this: “It is absurd to interpret our Lord’s words literally, for we have a perfect right to call our fathers and teachers by their just title” (The Question Box, p. 192). In their justification they cite 1 Corinthians 4:15, Philippians 2:22, and 1 Timothy 1:2. This is their manner of argument even to this day (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father). It might be asked: if we are not to take the words of the Lord literally in the passage (Matthew 23:9-10), should we take the words of the Lord literally in the remainder of the chapter? While they continue to assert that it is wrong to take the term literally, they attempt to buttress their interpretation by showing there are failings on the part of some with regard to the use of other terms. Still the passage reads, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (23:9). It’s not the use of the word that Jesus calls into question, but the use of the word in a spiritual/religious context that is the problem.

    ****

    How can one be a witness against himself in the way the Lord said they were (23:31)? What does a son do but emulate his father?

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 22 

    There will be a great wedding one day, and when that day comes, a day which no one knows, will you be invited to the wedding? Of course, all are invited, but it appears that many have more important things to do. Those who refuse regard the wedding that is coming as something not all that important. They have time, the invitations will always be forthcoming, and surely they can accept the invite when all their own desires are tended to properly. Those, however, who thought they had time and did not bring enough oil (because they thought they “timed it right”), when the Lord’s door is open and then is shut no one is capable of opening up!

    ****

    If one does not know the Scriptures or the power of God, can that one be pleasing to the Lord?

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 21 

    The question that the religious leaders asked Jesus is the same question that many should ask today. Unfortunately, unlike Jesus, many today tire of the question! “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?” It seems to me an appropriate set of questions to ask. However, it also seems to me a bit silly when this question is asked in this context: ____ [name removed] here: 1Cor.11:34 reads, ‘And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.’ This prompts me to ask: Upon what scriptural basis is it thought congregational picnics and potlucks are authorized?”

    ****

    Repentance illustrated. In the parable the Jesus used in conversation with the scribes, He asked a question about repentance: Which one did the will of the Father? (1) You will note that the father bade each to go forth; – God the Father bids us to heed His word. (2) The sons of the father both answered accordingly. One said he would go; the other said he would not go. The Almighty bids us to do His will; each of us responds accordingly. Some say to the Father I will; others say to the Father I will not. (3) Each son changed his mind – which is where repentance starts. (4) Each son did a particular action, which means that a change of mind is to be followed by an action. Godly repentance is a change of mind that leads to a change of action in the direction of the Lord (2 Corinthians 7:10).

    ****

    As the Lord came into the presence of the people the people made a point to ring out praise to the Lord (21:9). When we come into the Lord’s presence, what do we do?

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 20 

    H. Leo Boles comments that there are many expositors that have varied opinions on the parable of the vineyard. The following can be said without controversy: There is a benefactor – he who hires. There are those who have benefitted with employment. The benefactor had the prerogative to pay what he wished; the hired ones have the privilege to accept or not. Moreover, he who hires can employ as many as he wishes and pay the amount he wishes. At “settling up” time all are to receive what was agreed to. When the settling up of account was rendered what shall be said about those who thought those hired last received too much? There is not much good to be said about those who complained. Does that say anything about those of us today who think similar? Lest we lose sight of the parable, however, there is a greater point: the kingdom of heaven is like the analogy that Jesus just shared. Those who were added to the kingdom of God will receive the same, whether they came in early or late. “Peter and the rest of the twelve [19:27] have indeed left all for Christ, but they must not think that their priority in time gives them an overwhelming advantage” (Morris, pp. 498-499).

    ****

    Not only is there equality in the reward for one’s devotion to the Lord in the realm of eternity, but while here on this earth the Lord’s disciple is to adopt an attitude of service, with no thought of being first (20:26). This is much more difficult than is realized. We have in our culture an attitude of competition; I especially notice it among the males, but foolishness would reside with me if I thought for a moment females did not also struggle with it.

     
    • Mike Riley 1:17 pm on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Ron, many times, females’ thinking regarding competition far exceeds the male mindset. I know, I worked with one for 2-1/2 years. To her (she was 28 years old), everything was a competition. I think she must have acquired that mindset from her father.

  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on February 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 19 

    This chapter deals with a saying of Jesus that secular society refuses to come to terms with; from the perspective of secular society marriage is not to be limited. This includes homosexual marriages and marriage to as many spouses one may have through the years. Jesus, the Author of life, did not so affirm. In fact, when He took the conversation all the way back to the Garden of Eden He made it clear that all men everywhere are accountable to these words. Our humanistic society rejects such. Because of Satan’s ploy (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:11) many gospel preachers and Christians in general have also rejected the implementation of the Lord’s words to society. Perhaps there is much difficulty in one’s ministry regarding compromised situations – this I will attest to readily. Given that, however, there is a “default” position, and the Lord’s words are it.

    ****

    Have you ever thought about the word good? When the word is used it implies a measuring rod by which something else is measured. For instance, if you say something is evil, then you have a measuring rod in mind that identifies something else as good. To judge something as evil implies a quality as less than good. Satan is evil, we declare. What is the standard by which he is declared evil? God and His standard of holiness; God is good. Thus anything less than the perfect standard is less good, if you will. In 19:17, the Lord calls God’s commands good. How are you doing in relation to that (cf. 1 John 5:3; 2:1)?

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on January 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 18 

    Is greatness measured by physical status? Not according to the Lord. As He took a child He looked upon him as being of such a mind that each disciple of the Lord must be the same. If we take John 3:3-5 and couple it with 18:3-4 we have at least three components to salvation, don’t we? Don’t tell the “faith-only” crowd. They will call that a works religion!

    ****

    Jesus uses a child as a perfect illustration of the way Christians ought to be; to whom does He address His words in v. 6? Many expositors say it is mature believers (and I agree), but why should we think it is not little children as referenced in the previous verses? To begin, a child’s humility and dependence is used as an illustration for one who actually responds to the Lord’s invitation; this would refer to one who can decide on his or her own (cf. Acts 8:3). Second, the “little ones” are lost (v. 11); does this apply to a child? Third, not directly connected to the text, note how Jesus addresses the disciples (John 13:33; cf. 1 John 2:12).

    ****

    The greater point of understanding in the text is not who the “little ones” are, but the necessities and consequences associated with the problems of those who cause the little ones to lose their faith (18:7). Some men and women of God will say something like this when others leave the Lord: “It’s not my problem!” Perhaps it is more than is realized.

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 17 

    The mount of transfiguration is interesting and perplexing. It is interesting because of what transpired; it is perplexing because for what reason do we read it? In Matthew we read of its occurrence after Jesus’s discussion of His own death and resurrection; more than this, though, we have the Lord’s exhortation to His disciples that each needs to take up the cross and follow Him (also in Mark and Luke). For whose benefit was this “change of form” for? It could not have been for Jesus – at least it does not appear so – but then why only three of the twelve were present? For that matter, why was it that only the prophets Elijah and Moses were present with Jesus? Moses was the great law-giver that God chose for the great occasion of deliverance, and Elijah never saw death. Luke tells us that the conversation between the three was in regards to the death Jesus was about to experience (Luke 9:31). Interestingly enough, the Greek word in Luke 9:31 is exodon (exodus). As Peter spoke there was a “bright cloud” that overshadowed them; thus Moses, Elijah (Peter, James and John?) were in the presence of God, as the shekinah enveloped them (cf. Exodus 40:34-38).

    ****

    Elijah must come first, and the disciples saw him on the mount with Jesus and Moses. Was the prophetic word of that which the scribes taught (as recorded in Malachi 4:5-6) come to pass (be fulfilled)? In the Hebrew Bible there is no Malachi 4; it is 3:23-24. The teaching of the rabbis have varied between (1) Elijah will be the first resurrected, (2) he will come from Gan Eden in both body and soul (that is, he is still alive; he did not die), (3) to the fact that for assurance of his return Jacob (Israel) took a letter from Elijah’s name as “security that Elijah will come and herald the redemption of the children of Jacob” (ArtScroll, volume 2 (The Twelve Prophets), p. 338). From all this we learn that the Jews are still waiting and looking.

    ****

    How much faith do you have? Is it something to be measured in quantity? Jesus spoke of having faith as little as a mustard seed – if the disciple had it a mountain could be moved. Really? We learn from the disciples that there were two things necessary before they could expel the demon (or heal the boy). It was not a matter of simply the boy being harmed by some physical ailment, because Jesus rebuked the demon within the child (v. 18). The two things needed were authority and faith. Did they have either? Presumably they had the former, but it was the latter that was lacking. In v. 21 (NKJV; also in Mark 9:29), Jesus said there were two others things missing: prayer and fasting. The disciples had three strikes against them! If they just had a “little bit of faith” then a mountain could be moved. The mountain in this context was the rebuking of the demon. Just like those of that day, we also use a proverbial saying to make a greater point.

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 16 

    I have always been intrigued by the Lord’s rebuke of the disciples because of their lack of perception with regard to something they should have; they failed to understand an important lesson. In the first four verses the Lord rebukes the religious leaders because they could interpret the physical realm, but failed in their efforts toward the spiritual realm. This failing, it will be noted, was not something the Lord accepted. Thus, when they disciples interpreted their immediate physical surrounding like they did, they also failed to understand the spiritual. How guilty are we?

    ****

    The gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it! The Lord’s church will be victorious no matter what it is that Satan throws against it. As you look at Revelation 12 and 13 you will note that the full force of evil will come crashing into it and try to get through the “doors of the church.” The doors, however, are so strong that the only force strong enough to open them up will be the Lord Himself (cf. Revelation 3:20). While the local body might have its “candlestick” removed if there is a consistent failing to live by the light of God’s life, we can be sure that those in Christ (2 Timothy 2:19) will receive that for which they long. Are you faithful to Christ? Then by necessity you are faithful to His body, which is the church. Have you tried to make a distinction in your mind between Christ and the church? The Lord did not.

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From Matthew 15 

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 15. The commandments (traditions) of men, in the context here, are those commands that seek to nullify (or unintentionally nullify) what God actually commanded to be done. It is not talking about traditions per se, but only those traditions that relegate God’s commands as commands that can’t be obeyed. It is so easy for one to say that to honor God is a higher matter of moral and spiritual obligation than to honor one’s parents. This would be fine, if there was no setting aside what God declared needs to be done. The word tradition is not a bad word in a religious setting (context); for instance, it is the tradition of the local congregation to meet every morning at 6am. That is a tradition that the local church feels meets their needs better than meeting at 10am. Moreover, it is a tradition that the local church meet twice on Sunday; if they chose to meet only once that, too, would be okay. The tradition, however, that sets aside the command to be baptized by immersion for something like sprinkling is not okay, and will not meet with the Lord’s approval.

    ****

    When the Lord said that the Father will root up any and all plants He did not plant, it becomes incumbent upon us to be sure we have been planted by the Father. How can we learn such a thing as this? The Scriptures teach in John 6:44-45 that we learn from the Father when we learn the Scriptures. When you couple that with Jesus’ own teaching, why would anyone allow themselves to be planted by anyone but the Father!

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 14 

    Since you last walked on water, like Peter and the Lord did, you are certainly justified in offering criticism of another as they try to walk on land. What’s that? You’ve never walked on water? Surely you have! I seem to hear much come out of your mouth in the way of criticism toward another disciple; this happens frequently. Because you do it so much, surely you have walked on water!

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 13 

    The parable of the sower (or soil) is interesting to me because it deals with two primary thoughts that I like to emphasize. First, there is the sentiment of 13:11-15. Why did Jesus speak in parables? Because He wants those who have an interest in “plowing” ground to take the necessary time to allow the sown seed to germinate. The one who will allow this to occur is one who is patiently considering that which was sowed. To say it a little differently, that which we take time to thoroughly consider is that which we value. What do you value? A second point I like to emphasize is the nature of the soil. The wayside heart has no time to allow any seed to take root. There are too many things to do and not enough time to do it. The wayside heart can see value, but it is like a man running through his house and grabbing what food he can before he heads off to his next appointment. The food he has grabbed is healthy, but not enough of it to sustain him. More than that, however, though he can see value in the seed (teaching) he sees greater value in other things. His heart is hardened to such a point that the seeds lays there exposed – like a heartless person would do to a child not wanted! The stony heart is a heart that, perhaps, is considering a great many ideologies of the religious world, and when the Lord’s word is heard, it is considered. It is not long after hearing that the value of the word received is deemed great. Nevertheless, because of the track record and satisfaction one has gained in giving a due hearing to the many ideologies, the seed just hadn’t taken root like desired. There are those who look upon the Lord’s teaching, but in their rejection they soon ridicule it. The one who received the seed understands its value, has some seeming desire to hold on to it, but finally gives it up on account of the affliction and persecution received. The thorny heart is similar to the stony heart, it seems to me, but the difference is in the roots. Not only has the seed taken root, but the value of that rooted plant is so rewarding that one is doing what they can to hold on to it – so it is thought and believed. However, other seeds have taken root also and, in time, those roots begin competing with one another. The root that gives the greatest satisfaction contributes to the beginning stages and then ultimate accomplishment of uprooting the other plants (seeds). The fertile heart is a heart that sees value in the seed and a determination is made to set all other things in life to the side – they are just not as important anymore as they once were. Perhaps the crop produced has to do with the time in life in which the seed is received. Or, perhaps, the crop produced has to do with the ability of the one who received the seed. In either case, a crop is produced.

     
  • Ron Thomas 10:43 am on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From Matthew 12 

    Every time I read this chapter I can’t help but to give thought to some of our brethren. Just as the Pharisees criticized Jesus about doing something “unauthorized” we have brethren to the right who level accusations against others because there is a fellowship hall, or someone is eating in the building, or, worse yet, money from the church treasury was used to help a non-saint!
    ****
    There comes a time when a decision must be made. We understand this in just about all areas of life, but for some, in the area of religion, there is much difficulty associated with making a decision. It is not because there is a lack of understanding; it is not because there is a lack of understanding the consequences of being decisive; no, in fact, it is because they know the consequences, and there is no desire to experience them if the decision to be made in the Lord’s favor is made. Yet, the Lord made clear that if one is not for Him, then the one who failed to choose is against Him. A tough spot to be in, wouldn’t you say?
    ****
    Was Jesus actually three days and three nights in the grave (12:40)? If He was in the grave for 72 hours, wouldn’t that mean there was a fourth day? In 20:19 (cf. 16:21) we learn that Jesus would rise on the third day. Thus, whatever we are to understand about the three days and three nights, it must be understood in relation to Jesus being raised on the third day. Some, however, maintain that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday; if that is so, then the same evening time on Thursday would be 24 hours, the same evening time on Friday would another 24 hours, the same evening time on Saturday would be an additional 24 hours, bringing us to the point that we now have three complete days. If Jesus was not resurrected at this same point on the Sabbath (our Saturday), which would be the 3rd day, then it would necessarily mean that He was resurrected on the 4th day. No conclusion could be made but that Jesus was mistaken when He said on the 3rd day He would rise, wouldn’t it? Yet, Jesus said he would rise on the 3rd day (16:21; 20:19), Mark attests that He did rise on the 3rd day (Mark 16:9; cp. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 7, 21; John 20:1), and so it must be that the phrase in 12:40 is not to be understood as a literal 72 hour period. D.A. Carson writes, “In rabbinical thought, a day and a night make an onah, and a part of an onah is as the whole. Thus according to Jewish tradition, ‘three days and three nights’ need mean no more than ‘three days’ or the combination of any part of three separate days” (EBC-R, p. 342).

     
    • Stephen R. Bradd 4:10 pm on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Good points, Ron. I wonder if the Christian church thinks about us when they read Matt 12? Apples & oranges, yes, but you planted the thought in my head. :)

      • Ron Thomas 6:57 pm on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks, Stephen. Yes, you are right on the fruit. One adds based on presumption, the other subtracts and divides based on opinion.

  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on January 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 11 

    How could John the Baptist recognize that he needed to be baptized by the One coming to him, and how could he not take note that the One he baptized was the Son of God, and how could he declare Him to his disciples as the Lamb of God, and then begin to show doubt on the occasion here in 11:2-3? Because he was human and his ideas may not have corresponded exactly with what the Lord did. If this is the case, there is nothing that is out-of-sort about that, is there? Did not Peter walk with the Lord, declare Him to be the One sent from God, and then rebuke the Lord because the Lord told him that He must go to Jerusalem (16:21-23)? Surely, it is the same man. This goes to show that we all have a point of reference from which we make our judgments, and many times that point of reference is misguided.

    ****

    The kingdom of God taken by force? John was not in the kingdom of which Jesus spoke (11:11), and from his days until now some were trying to take the kingdom by force (11:12). This is the only reference in the gospels, but something close is in Luke 16:16. Jesus gives us a point of reference, bookends of a time frame. From the time of John until now; not much time is involved here. How to interpret the verse (phrase) is interesting: the NET reads, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and forceful people lay hold of it.” When we read it this way we learn the kingdom of heaven is present already, but if that is so, how can the least be greater than John the Baptist (11:11) – was he not in the kingdom of heaven? What is likely in view, in my estimation, is that the kingdom of heaven under the old economy has indeed suffered much violence, and this is the point of reference that all who lived had (at that time) when they thought about what both John and Jesus were saying regarding the coming kingdom. Yet the Lord spoke something about the kingdom in His sermon (on the mount) that was much different than what was observed. So, perhaps, with much violence Satan uses his minions to thwart God’s plan (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:11; Revelation 12).

     
    • Don Ruhl 2:07 pm on January 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I know that it is common to believe that John was doubting, but I have not accepted that view yet, although I want to be open about it.

      It seems to me that John did this for the benefit of his disciples, in other words, it was a way of getting them to see that Jesus was in fact the coming One!

      • Ron Thomas 2:16 pm on January 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Perhaps you are right, Don, but I would think there would be something in the text to make that a little clearer to me. Perhaps you can suggest something to help me see it.

        • Don Ruhl 3:58 pm on January 5, 2012 Permalink

          I do not have any other suggestions from the text, just the possibility of another interpretation.

      • Stephen R. Bradd 4:31 pm on January 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        John’s question in Matthew 11:3 is puzzling to many, and there are several ideas regarding the reason why John made this inquiry. It is natural to wonder why John, who proclaimed Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), would have doubts concerning Jesus as “the Coming One”. Some believe that John did not personally have doubts but merely wanted his disciples to ask Jesus this question in order to strengthen their faith. Others believe that John merely wanted to get Jesus to publicly declare Himself. However, in spite of these interesting explanations, it seems clear to me that John’s faith did in fact waver. He was a prophet, but this did not mean that his inspiration would be to the level of omniscience or that it would remove all doubt from his mind. After all, Moses talked with God, and he had doubts (Exo. 3,4). Peter witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus and heard the voice of the Father (Matt. 17:1-9), yet he later denied the Lord with cursing (Matt. 26:69-75). Why is it that no one finds Peter’s actions to be unbelievable, yet many have difficulty with the concept of John the baptizer doubting?

        It is likely that John’s faith was tested to the extent that Peter’s was. John had faithfully executed his God-given role, but his expectations had not been fulfilled. The unfruitful trees had not been cut down, the grain had not been winnowed nor the chaff burned, and he could not see any progress toward these results (cf. Matt. 3:10-12). With nothing much to do except think, it is understandable how John’s confinement in prison could lead to doubt, even though he had at one time plainly declared Christ to be the Son of God (cf. John 1:15,34).

        The wording of John’s question should also be noted – “Are you the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Certainly John, like all of the other Jews, had the idea that the Messiah would establish a physical, earthly kingdom and that He would reign as king on David’s throne in Jerusalem. Since John couldn’t see Jesus fulfilling this type of role, is it not possible that he wondered if Jesus was a forerunner like himself? Is it not possible that John, in his confusion, was beginning to think that Jesus would merely prepare the way for the ultimate Messiah? Let it be noted that regardless of why John asked this question regarding Jesus’ identity, he should be credited with having enough confidence in Jesus to direct the question to Him.

        When John the baptizer was asked if He was “the Christ”, he plainly said, “No” (John 1:20,21). John probably hoped that Jesus would answer him just as plainly. However, Jesus chose to answer John’s question indirectly as is seen in Matthew 11:4-6.

        Jesus wanted John to be told of the things that He was saying and doing (cf. Luke 7:21). Informing John of these six things would remind him of Isaiah’s prophecies regarding the Messiah (cf. Isa. 29:18; 35:5,6; 42:7; 61:1-3). John would understand Jesus to be saying, “My works speak for themselves. Since I’m doing the works characteristic of the Messiah, then certainly I am the Messiah!”

        Probably the biggest reason, besides envy, as to why the Jewish religious leaders were offended by Jesus was because He didn’t live up to their expectations concerning the Messiah. It appears that John the baptizer was in danger of falling into the same error. Thus, Jesus warned John – “Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.” Jesus was everything the Scriptures predicted the Messiah would be. However, He was not everything the people expected. Some lost faith in Him as a result.

        • John Henson 11:31 pm on January 5, 2012 Permalink

          I believe Stephen is right, but I also wonder if John understood exactly what Jesus was on earth to do. Even Jesus’ 12 apostles, after three years, were mistaken (Acts 1:6). The apostles evidently believed that Jesus was going to overcome the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom, but that was not the Lord’s mission. Perhaps, John was frustrated by what he believed was inaction.

        • Ron Thomas 3:58 am on January 6, 2012 Permalink

          I certainly respect Don’s approach to the text, though I am of the persuasion of Stephen and John. The thoughts of all are good; appreciate reading them.

  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on January 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 10 

    To the Jew first and then to the Gentiles; this was the message of Jesus to His twelve chosen disciples when He commissioned them (10:5-6), and it was His message to them when He commissioned them again (Acts 1:6-8). The disciples were go and preach, and if there was rejection there was to be symbolism (10:14). Before symbolism can have a point, it has to be understood. The disciples were front-line workers in God’s kingdom; thus, they needed to be prepared for the response Jesus told them would come.

    ****

    Matthew, Mark, and Luke record this limited commission of the Lord’s disciples. In Matthew and Luke the disciples are told to take nothing, but in Mark they are told to take a staff (Mark 6:8). In Matthew, they are not to take two coats, nor shoes, nor staff. Is it that they are not to take two, but the ones they have are okay? In Mark they are to have a staff and they are to have their shoes, but they do not need two coats. Clearly, the idea is that they are to travel light, and that which would be needed would be provided to them by others. The word “provide” (Matthew 10:9, NKJV) is rendered “do not procure” by D.A. Carson (see also R.T. France). Mark says the disciples are to take nothing for the journey, save a staff. Underscore the word nothing in your Bible. If they are to take nothing, then that means they are to take not-one-thing. Would this not include clothing that they were wearing? If nothing is to have its literal force, it would mean exactly that. However, there is some limitation to how the word is understood in this context – and reasonable people can see it. Nothing extra are they to take, but that which they have.

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on December 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 9 

    Matthew was a Jewish man, but a Jewish man working for Rome. Not a healthy combination. He, I am sure, was not too unlike any other Jewish man of his day, apart from his desire to make some money. Did he make more than he should have? Who knows, but perhaps he went about his business in the proper way. Just the same, he would have been considered an outsider by the Jewish community. Maybe one Jew said to another about him, “He is a Jewish son that only a mother could love!” When Jesus saw him, He showed His love to him when He called him to come and follow a man he hardly knew if he knew Him at all. Matthew answers the call. What do we know about Matthew? Not much, but that which we have of him is his telling of the Master that changed his life. Have you gone to tell it on the mountain?

    ****

    Have you noticed that when Jesus walked about the geographical area of Israel, He walked about teaching and preaching (not that there is a lot of difference between the two)? In fact, it was of primary importance that He teach; whatever miraculous He did, He did it to confirm the authority by which He taught (cf. John 3:2).

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on December 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 8 

    How do you regard authority? The centurion regarded authority as he had been taught, and Jesus was impressed. Is Jesus impressed with how you regard authority, especially the Lord’s authority? Over the years Christians have placed a premium on the teaching of the Lord’s authority: if we don’t have authority from the Lord, we can’t do this (whatever it is that might be under discussion). This frustrates some, but it ought not to. The apostle Paul said words to the same effect in Colossians 3:17, and it is only a matter of honor and prudence that we hear what both the Lord says and what the apostle taught.

    ****

    That Peter had a mother-in-law (8:14-15) is not news that is of particular note – unless you address it in the context of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church “Marriage was never allowed after ordination… If an aspirant [to the priesthood] were already married, he had to practice celibacy from the day he became a Priest.” In order to justify their teaching of celibacy to priests they declare: “Thus right back to the 2nd century you have explicit testimony that in the Catholic Church once a man became a Priest he had to renounce marriage, and practice celibacy” (Radio Replies, Fathers Rumble and Carty, #1194, p. 242, 1938; this is a 3-volume work with the Catholic Imprimatur). From Catholic teaching, therefore, we are to understand that Peter “renounced” his marriage to his wife? Yes, that is what we are to understand. Be sure to read Matthew 7:15.

    ****

    Do you love animals, especially pets? We have a house-trained dog that we love (we keep it outside most of the time). We care for it, play with it, and give it the necessary love that two people desire to give. However, the love we have for our dog (and yard/barn cats) does not compare with the love we have toward our children. This is expected, I know. Yet, when you listen to some people their regard for animals is rather unhealthy. There was once a man who had livestock, a herd of swine. The Lord knew of their value, but the cumulative value of the heard did not compare with the soul of one person.

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on December 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 7 

    If you want to find a “Bible student” on the street who will let you know just how wrong you are in judging others, it will be the one that brings verse 1 to your attention – judge not that you be not judged! Be sure, however, to not ask them where the words they assert are located and, most definitely, do not ask them the context of the passage, because then you’ll just be intolerant and a legalist!

    ****

    When one considers 7:13-14, it is so easy to look upon others for this warning to be applied; it would be wise, however, if we look at ourselves. While a conscientious person will be hard on self – much harder than those on the outside will be – still, that conscientious person knows the personal motivations and, perhaps, purity that prompted one to take a path too broad. Yet, that path had been taken and no matter what prompted it, one is on it. Look at self, and then help others do the same with regard to themselves.

     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on December 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts from Matthew 6 

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 6. What has been called “The Lord’s Prayer” is more aptly described as the Lord’s “model prayer.” The disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray. Jesus replied with this model prayer.

    • “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” You will note that we have Father in heaven, one that loves and cares for us in our time of sorrow, concern, and even joy. He is in heaven where He can see all that can be seen; more than that, He is in the heavenly realm where all glory is to be found and, consequently, His name is to be hallowed (made and kept holy) because His nature is holy.
    • “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The word “kingdom” refers to God’s rule, reign. Was there ever a time that God did not rule or reign? No, but the word kingdom is used in a different sense here. It could refer to the church (Matthew 16:18-19), or it could refer to the consummation of time (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) when God’s spiritual and holy rule is over all those who belong to Him (cf. 2 Timothy 2:19). In the Corinthian passage, however, the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father, so it must be the church that is referred to here. When God’s kingdom comes, those who belong to Him who is over all, they will be the ones doing God’s will on this earth. The life they life will be a life that brings glory to God’s name. The life Christians live will be a light in a dark world. There is no darkness in heaven, but there is plenty “down” here! What better way to bring light into the world but to emulate Him who is light (1 John 1:5)?
    • “Give us this day our daily bread.” There is an attitude of heart that depends on the Lord for physical sustenance. It may be different today for us than for them – because of the day laborer approach that many survived on, but still, the importance of dependence on the Lord is not to be minimized.
    • and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” The golden rule is never out of place with a child of God. When we lose sight of what we have been forgiven, will the Lord lose sight of His forgiveness toward us?
    • And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” The Lord never tempts us (James 1:12), but we allow ourselves to be tempted when the road signs the Lord puts us are set to the side because we are going too fast (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:13).
    • For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen”. This phrase is not found in the ESV, NIV, or RSV, but it is in the NKJV and the NASV (though in brackets). The NET text critical note says that the phrase is in most Greek manuscripts though there are some who eliminate the phrase in some modern translations because of the few “better witnesses.”
      • Because there are at least six variations to how 6.13 should end, some text critical scholars are of the opinion that it was probably a liturgical addition, and not part of the Greek text.
      • Whether this is so or not, I am in no position to say; I am of the opinion (only slightly educated) that the NKJV has merit for its inclusion. With that in mind, what shall I say about the phrase? At the outset of this model prayer the Lord taught His disciples to pray for the kingdom to come; here we read that the kingdom belongs to the Lord. The kingdom, in this regard, I would suggest, is not to be limited to the New Testament church (though it is included), but it is the rule and reign of God and His rule/reign will last and be glorified forever.
     
  • Ron Thomas 2:00 pm on December 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 5 

    How in the world could the disciples remember all that the Lord said on the important occasion of that which we call the Sermon on the Mount? Have you ever memorized anything? I have and with much dread. Memorization is not pleasant to me; I had to do so in the school of preaching I attended. Just the same, there is value in it. Craig Blomberg remarks about the memorization approach of those who lived in the first century:

    According to Riesenfeld, Jesus probably had his disciples memorize his most significant teaching and perhaps even certain narratives about what he did. Thus there is every reason to believe that they were reliably preserved…In addition to documenting how widespread and prodigious the practice of memorization was in ancient rabbinic circles (many rabbis had the entire Old Testament and much of the oral law committed to memory!)… (“The Historical Reliability of the Gospel,” Craig Blomberg, IVP, p. 25 (but especially see pages 25-31) 1987).

    When one considers the educational approach of the rabbis, the Lord and His disciples had (coupled with the apostles being guided into all truth) I think it is perfectly reasonable to set aside any question concerning reliability.

    ****

    Did some actually think Jesus was trying to abolish (destroy) the Law of Moses? This was an accusation leveled at not only Jesus, but the apostles also (Luke 4:16-30; Acts 6:14; 24:1-14). The idea of “abolish” or “destroy” is, in effect, to set aside as valueless. Jesus did not come to do this at all; rather, He came to fulfill. A world of difference there is between the two. Some people today still struggle with this idea; they think that God (Jesus) did not come to do away with the moral law as revealed in the Ten Commandments, but rather the Lord came to do away with the ceremonial law. Jesus did not make this kind of distinction, and neither did the apostles – this is strictly a man-made distinction. Jesus said the Law of Moses will pass away at a point in time; that point in time will be when all is fulfilled (vss. 17-18). God sent to this earth a man who could completely fulfill (bring to completion) all that the law stood for (cf. Matthew 22:34-40). He did not come to set aside the Law of Moses as valueless, because it had great value (cf. Galatians 3:24ff).

     
  • Ron Thomas 6:00 am on December 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 4 

    Moses was in the wilderness leading a people that had in their midst a rebellious contingent. They called upon Moses to provide them sustenance, and with that Moses and Aaron approach the Lord. The Lord tells them to do a certain thing and Moses in his frustration with the people goes beyond that certain thing the Lord told him to do (Numbers 20:1-11). Satan tempts Jesus to provide for Himself sustenance, but Jesus refused.  Satan knows that Jesus is God’s Son, but his test is with respect to what kind of Son Jesus will be! Just what kind of “son” are we to the Father? **** What is it to be a “fisher of men”? I am not a fisherman, but I understand that when one casts a line, the bait at the end of the line is to be attractive and appetizing. Having latched on, the Lord “reels” them in. This imagery, however, is not to be seen as one who struggles trying to get away, but one who latches on trying not to let Satan come full-force to rip one away. Paul said to Titus that he is to exhort bondservants to adorn (make attractive) the doctrine of God (Titus 2:9-10). To be a fisher of men, at the very least, means one is to do that. The method employed by individuals might vary, but this one is crucial.

     
  • Ron Thomas 8:10 am on December 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    A Few Thoughts From: Matthew 3 

    With John’s preaching of repentance there was a proclamation of God’s kingdom being at hand (near). How near was God’s kingdom? John does not tell us, but with Jesus’ coming and His demonstration by signs, it was that near (cf. John 5:31-40). It was a kingdom that demanded repentance; repentance is a change of thinking that leads to a change in life. It does not matter that one’s behavior does not change all that much (for some this is the case); the lifestyle change may not be all that drastic, but just the same, there is a new foundation from which his thinking process begins. For others the change in life is so much that people on the outside believe they are looking at a person they never knew. Jesus requires all to repent (Acts 17:30-31), so when John muted those who might have thought of lineage as being adequate for entry into God’s kingdom, he did so with illustrative force (3:9-10).
    ****
    Have you wondered about why Jesus was baptized by John? The answer is readily given by Jesus – to fulfill all righteousness (3:15). Yet, in one’s thinking, there just seems to be something odd about the Son of God, one who had no sins (Hebrews 4:15), that he would need to be baptized unto repentance for the remission of sins. John demanded fruits worthy of repentance, but Jesus did not need to repent. John’s baptism of “unto repentance” was for (with a view to) the remission of sin, but for what sins did Jesus need to be forgiven? In Jesus’ coming to John He did at least two things: 1) He attested to John’s baptism as being from God (Luke 7:29-30), 2) He associated Himself with man, and, if we might add another reason, 3) It was the start of His public ministry to the nation of Israel.

     
  • Ron Thomas 8:44 am on December 5, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , herod, , Matthew, Micah   

    A Few Thoughts from Matthew 2 

    Political turmoil was a norm in the days of the Lord; there might have been some stability, but when a political leader like Herod is able to kill who he wants and when he wants to, to say there in NOT turmoil is to be mistaken. Can you imagine living (always) in fear of someone behind you? This is how Herod lived, and when he heard of the Scriptures attesting to a new born king, that was enough to get him into action! R.C. Foster said that Herod died in March of 4 B.C., and if he saw to it that the males were killed at two years of age and younger, we get a time frame in which our Lord was born (D.A. Carson notes that some have attempted to take the years of our Lord’s birth to 2 B.C.). However, with that, we still don’t know exactly when it was – so how in the world can anyone assert that is was December 25th?! It may have been, but not a single one of knows this to be the case.

    ****

    If the Lord was 33 years of age when He was crucified, at what year would His passing have been?

    ****

    In 2:6 we read that in Bethlehem the Messiah would be born; this is how the religious leaders interpreted the Scripture in their day and this is what they told the king as well. “As shown by the rendering of the Targum Jonathan, the prediction of Micah v.2 was at that time universally understood as pointing to Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the Messiah” (Edersheim, Volume 1, Book 2, Chapter 8, p. 206, 1904 edition). The significance of this remark by Edersheim will be seen when we take note how Orthodox Judaism now looks at the passage. This passage does not place the birth of the Messiah in the city (town, village) of Bethlehem, but only from the house of David who, himself, was born in Bethlehem. “… it is from this family that the Messianic king will emerge … Scripture does not mean that the Messiah’s birthplace will be the city of Bethlehem [as Christian writers propose] but that the Messianic king will be a descendent of the House of David which originated in Bethlehem” (Commentary on Micah 5:1, ArtScroll Tanach Series, Volume 2, p. 37).

     
    • Stephen R. Bradd 9:01 am on December 5, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      AD 30 makes the most sense to me.
      I know “AD 33″ is popular, but I don’t see how it can be justified unless one is willing to embrace the notion of a much longer public ministry of Christ (and Jesus dying at an older age).

    • Ron Thomas 9:03 am on December 5, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Of late, I have been inclined to think about 29, though 30 might be the case.

  • Ron Thomas 7:14 am on December 2, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew   

    Thoughts From Matthew 1 

    When you read Matthew 1 is it easy to forget the volumes of history associated with the names mentioned. So often it is that some people look at such a genealogy as merely “trudging through” a weed patch. When you look at a headstone in the cemetery do you reflect on, even for a moment, what history this person’s name reflects? The Wall (in Washington D.C.) represents the lives of thousands of men and women who died serving our country in a war that most would like to forget. Here in this chapter are names that most people simply don’t know much (if anything) about; let us reflect, however, that there is much to learn.

    ****

    It might not seem to be a “big” thing for some to deny the virgin-birth of our Lord, but since the Holy Spirit said that He was born of a virgin, it is a very “big” thing. The word virgin comes from a Greek word (parthenos) that means virgin (one who has had no sexual relations with another). Young says the English word is used 13x in the New Testament, while Mounce says the Greek word is used 15x in the New Testament. Regarding the Greek word Mounce said, “In Greek literature outside the NT, parthenos generally refers to a young woman of marriageable age with or without focus on virginity. But in the NT, parthenos stresses the one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse” (p. 768).

    ****

    It is a shame of great magnitude that Catholic doctrine has it that Mary stayed a virgin for the remainder of her days on this earth. “Christ had no human father. The Blessed Virgin remained a virgin all her life” (“My Catholic Faith,” p. 61, italics in original). Their doctrine deprives Joseph of the marital relations that married couples are to share as they grow old. In sum, we can say the following: 1) it is not a teaching of Scripture, 2) it minimizes the marital relationship that God set in order in the Garden of Eden, 3) and it denies the clear teachings on the New Testament that Mary and Joseph had other children (Matthew 12:46-47).

     
  • Stephen R. Bradd 6:52 am on May 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew,   

    Sunday 

    I’m preaching through the book of Matthew currently. Yesterday was chapter 3. I’m stressing the purpose for Matthew’s writing (namely, to prove to his readers that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Messiah) and trying to “give the sense” of the reading (Neh. 8:8).

    So far we’ve stressed:

    Accumulating evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (all fulfilled OT predictions):

    • Descendant of Abraham
    • Descendant of David
    • Born of a virgin
    • Born in Bethlehem
    • Wilderness prophet forerunner

    Finally, yesterday we noted the heavenly Father’s pronouncement of who Jesus was.

     
  • Daniel Haynes 4:59 pm on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Matthew,   

    A man should be as vigorous as a panther, as swift as an eagle, as fleet as a stag, and as strong as a lion to do the will of his Creator.

    From Adam Clarke’s Commentary, quoting a saying among the rabbis
     
  • Daniel Haynes 3:03 pm on May 15, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Matthew,   

    The Temptation of Jesus 

    Concerning Matthew’s account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (4:1-11), specifically Jesus’ response in verse 4, Albert Barnes offers the following lessons:

    • That Satan oftens takes advantage of our circumstances and wants to tempt us. The poor, the hungry, and the naked he often tempts to repine and complain, and to be dishonest in order to supply their necessities.
    • Satan’s temptations are often the strongest immediately after we have been remarkably favored. Jesus had just been called the Son of God, and Satan took this opportunity to try him. He often attempts to fill us with pride and vain self-conceit when we have been favored with any peace of mind, or any new view of God, and endeavors to urge us to do something which may bring us low and lead us to sin.
    • His temptations are plausible. They often seem to be only urging us to do what is good and proper. They seem even to urge us to promote the glory of God, and to honor him. We are not to think, therefore, that because a thing may seem to be good in itself, that therefore it is to be done. Some of the most powerful temptations of Satan occur when he seems to be urging us to do what shall be for the glory of God.
    • We are to meet the temptations of Satan, as the Savior did, with the plain and positive declarations of Scripture. We are to inquire whether the thing is commanded, and whether, therefore, it is right to do it, and not trust to our own feelings, or even our wishes, in the matter.

    From Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.

     
  • Daniel Haynes 4:43 pm on March 8, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Matthew,   

    Textual Exegesis of Matthew 24:34-36 

    Matthew 24 is one of the most controversial chapters in the New Testament. Interpretations abound; elaborate millennial theories have been structured, in part, upon it. Songs have been composed espousing such theories. (Follow this link to read the entire article…)

     
  • Daniel Haynes 5:12 pm on February 25, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Chiasma, , Matthew,   

    Chiastic Arrangement in Revelation 

    A few weeks ago, Randal introduced me to a chiastic structure of the Letter of James. In a recent study of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount, I also learned of at least two chiastic arrangements see Matthew 5:45 and 7:6. Then yesterday as I was preparing to discuss Revelation 12 G.K. Beale caught my attention by introducing a chiastic arrangement in chapters 12-20. Just below, you can read his discovery that might offer a more lucid picture of Act 2 of The Apocalypse:

    The devil is the grand initiator of the trials and persecutions of the saints. He unleashes the “beast” and the “false prophet.” The whore Babylon is also his servant. In chs. 12-20 John chiastically pictures the four figures rising in this order and then meeting their demise in the reverse order, thus highlighting the devil as the initiator, from first to last, of all resistance (The Book of Revelation, 623).

     
    • Randal Matheny 5:16 pm on February 25, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      If I can find it, remind me to send you the chiasmus I think I found in the last chapter of Rev.

  • Daniel Haynes 4:29 pm on February 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Matthew   

    Daily Meditation 

    For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are the things that defile a person; it is not eating with unwashed hands that defiles a person. Matthew 15:19-20, NET

     
  • J. Randal Matheny 12:16 am on January 25, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Matthew   

    Adult Bible lesson nicely done 

    In this pdf handout for Bible school, I like the two divisions Larry gives in Matt. 11: revelation and invitation. Check it out HERE.

    Two bad those two divisions don’t sound as good in Portuguese, no rhyme in the translation. :)

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,094 other followers

%d bloggers like this: