Q. Did God design Noah’s Ark more like a massive barge than an actual boat, so it didn’t tip over easily during the high winds and gigantic waves?
God gave the following instructions to Noah to build the ark:
Gen 6:14-16 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with compartments, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and put the door of the ark on the side; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
V 15’s footnote says, “about 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft high”, assuming 1 cubit is about 18” or 1.5 ft. In comparison, an American football field measures 100 yds long (300 ft) and 160 ft wide. So the ark is 1.5 times a football field’s length, but just under half (47%) its width.
There is no mention of bow, stern, mast, sail, keel, or rudder, conventional parts of a ship. From its description, it was simply shaped like a rectangular box, with a flat bottom and three decks for maximum storage capacity. So it does appear that it was like a barge designed not for navigating, but just to stay afloat for a long length of time. Why? Because the ark is an object lesson for salvation:
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
1 Pet 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
The ark is a type of Christ:
If you were in the ark, you are saved. If you were outside the ark, you perish. Similarly, 1 Jn 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
God was patient during the construction of the ark. Similarly, God is patient now, 2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Noah’s family did not depend on their sea-faring skills (they did not have any) to bring them to safety. Their security was completely in God’s hands. Similarly, Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Hence an oblong box was entirely adequate. There was no need for an ocean liner.
Q. What are the different ranks of angels in the Bible?
The word angel translates primarily the Hebrew masculine noun mal’āḵ in the OT and the Greek masculine noun angelos in the NT. Both mean a messenger. There are different orders or types of angels, but their hierarchy is not as clearly defined as some traditions (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) make it to be. Let us review a few passages.
First, Paul and Peter referred to several beings which some commentators interpret to be different ranks of angels or fallen angels:
Rom 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
Eph 3:10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but againstthe rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against thespiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 2:15 When He had disarmed therulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
1 Thes 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
1 Pet 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
Both principalities and rulers translate archē and maybe the same entity. Our struggle is against rulers, powers, world forces, spiritual forces, and Christ triumphed over authorities, so these are enemy types. Presumably, there are similar types within angels before they fell. However, it is not clear what rank they follow (e.g. general, colonel, major, captain, etc.) as they are not always in the same sequence, nor do we know whether the order is descending or ascending.
Second, the archangel is supposedly a chief angel, but its prefix is archē, the same word translated as principalities and rulers. So what is the difference? However, there is a clue in the only named archangel in the Bible, Michael, who appeared three times in Daniel:
Dan 10:3 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.
Dan 10:21 However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michaelyour prince.
Dan 12:1 Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Jude 1:9 But Michael thearchangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war,
Since Michael is one of the chief princes, called the great prince, and led his angels to fight against the dragon, logically he is of a higher rank.
Third, scholars believe cherubim (plural, singular cherub) and seraphim (plural, singular seraph) to be high ranking angels because of their proximity to God:
Gen 3:24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden, He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
Isa 6:2, 6 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. … Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs.
The word cherubim occur 67 times in 58 verses in the NASB. Many believe they are angels, but a minority felt that they are symbolic representations of either the triune God or redeemed humanity. The word seraphim occur only twice in 2 verses in the NASB, and means “fiery ones”, or “burning, glowing”. For sure cherubim and seraphim are creatures made by God to serve Him, but nowhere in the Bible are they identified as “angels”. They might be, we just can’t say so definitely.
Q. Is the abomination of desolation Satan’s perception in the Temple which is in us? Could the second beast in the Book of Revelation be the Spanish inquisition? Why is everyone assuming there is no time between the second beast and Judgement?
The term “abomination of desolation” appears four times in the NASB:
Dan 11:31 Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
Dan 12:11 From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
Mat 24:15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
As you can see it is something “set up” and people “see,” so it is NOT Satan’s perception in the Temple which is in us.
You are referring to the beast from the earth in Rev 13:11-18
Rev 13:11ff Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.
The Spanish Inquisition could not be the beast from the earth or the False Prophet, as it does not fit the description in Revelation:
Rev 13:12-17 He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. He performs great signs so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causesall, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the freemen and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.
The Spanish Inquisition prosecuted about 150,000 and executed 3-5,000 people to identify Catholic heretics, but it was nowhere near “all who dwell on the earth.” Nor could it make fire come down out of heaven, make the image of the beast (the Antichrist) speak, and mark all with the mark of the beast on the right hand or forehead. Roman Catholics would deny they are the first beast vehemently.
Not everyone assumes that there is not enough time between the emergence of the second beast and the Final Judgment. Evangelical Christians believe the first and second beasts will reveal their identity during the apostasy just before the seven-year tribulation:
2 Thes 2:3-4 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
2 Thes 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
The man of lawlessness (the lawless one), the son of destruction, is the Antichrist or first beast. The second beast is contemporary with the first beast. The Lord will judge both and throw them into the lake of fire:
Rev 19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him, the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Q. Mark 9:1 “see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” The transfiguration is a microcosm of the glory of God’s kingdom. Jesus appeared in the center with Moses and Elijah. In the Jewish minds, this affirms the true important stature of Jesus. Should we read more into it than this, making it into eisegesis? Putting our words into God’s mouth! Is my conjecture out of line?
Only Luke conveys the content of the conversation, not Matthew or Mark. Luke portrays Jesus Christ as Savior. Might it be Luke’s reason to reveal God’s plan for salvation, a prophecy of what is going to happen in the near and distant future? Jesus’ exodus from the world (death, resurrection, and ascension) is for the salvation of the world, including the gentiles. By grace, in the future, the two witnesses are partners in the plan for the salvation of the chosen people. Prophesies are from God/Jesus. He fulfilled the OT prophesies of salvation for human beings as in Genesis 3:15.
God/Jesus is the lawgiver. He fulfills the law for salvation. The OT Moses’ laws condemn sinners to death. The NT Jesus frees the sinners from death (and gives life) with His own blood as required by the law. Leviticus 17:11″For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” John 1:14 Moses mediated the law, Christ mediated grace and truth. Deut. 18:15-19, Moses prophesized a prophet like him will come. Moses represents both the law and prophet. Jesus Christ has fulfilled both laws and prophecies.
I do not think Elijah has ever prophesied about Jesus or much of other things besides curses. Besides God’s wonders done through Elijah, it seems that the only reason Elijah was among these three is because of Malachi 4:5-6 “Elijah will be sent before Jesus’ second coming of the awesome day of the Lord. “
The time of Jacob’s trouble will be the time for the Jews. Moses and Elijah were both Jacob’s descendants. The two lampstands and the two olive trees are all Jewish terms. Enoch was not Jewish. The presence of Jesus talking about salvation with the 2 Jews might point to John 4:22 Salvation is from the Jews. The appearance of the OT Jewish saints together with the NT Jewish savior of the world might point to Ephesian 2:14. God has not told us their names. Perhaps He wants us to concentrate on glorifying Him for the wonders done by the witnesses whoever they are.
A. A large part of your “question” is your view on the topic, not a query. I will therefore respond only to your actual question in italics.
Eisegesis is reading your own ideas and presuppositions into the text, as opposed to exegesis which is drawing out the author’s meaning based on an analysis of the text, context, including the historical and cultural background, grammar, and genre. Eisegesis is subjective, while exegesis is objective, based on evidence. I am of the “old school,” and against eisegesis, which makes the scripture say what you want it to say. I stand 100% on exegesis. So we should not read more into a text than its plain and implied meaning. To do more would be to put words into God’s mouth, which is the sin of false prophets and false teachers.
Having said that, much of your comments are not wrong, as they are based on other scriptures. It is just that that is not what Mk 9:1 said. In expounding a passage, you can use Scripture to explain Scripture. If we must understand a certain subject, God will repeat the lesson in other passages to make sure we get it. Just state the related passages you are bringing in so that readers know where you are coming from, and whether those passages are indeed relevant. To say that all these ideas come from the single text you are expounding would be out of line.
For example, my views on Luke’s record of the Transfiguration are in:
Whether you agree or disagree, the rationale and supporting verses are all listed for you to verify or challenge. I have learned from the thousands of sermons I have listened to, and from the thousands of articles and hundreds of books I have read over the years. All of these contributed to shaping my opinion when I wrote this post. But to assume all of that came out of Lk 9:31 would be wrong.
Third, what about the Son of Man? What was the people’s conception of the Messiah in Jesus’ days? They expected him to be a political deliverer:
Jn 6:14-15 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.
Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
But the purpose of the Lord’s first coming was spiritual, not political:
Mt 1:21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
He needed time to preach the kingdom of heaven and train disciples, so He kept a low profile and did not publicize His Messiahship, warning people not to tell who He was:
Mt 12:16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
Mk 3:12 And He earnestly warned them not to tell who He was.
Mk 7:36a And He gave them orders not to tell anyone;
Lk 9:21 But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone,
Instead, He chose to designate Himself as the “Son of Man,” which title served both to conceal His identity to the careless, and to reveal who He was to the devout waiting for the kingdom. The title could simply mean a “man” or “human being,” as in the ninety-three times the LORD addressed Ezekiel. It showed His identification with men whom He came to save. But there is also a clue to His deity in:
Dan 7:13-14 “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.
The Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven to receive dominion, glory, and a kingdom from the Ancient of Days, i.e. the Father. The parallel to Jesus’ description of Himself and His reply to the Sanhedrin is obvious:
Mk 13:26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Mt 24:30b and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Although Jesus kept silent initially, He admitted plainly that He is the Son of God and the Messiah when Caiaphas placed Him under oath. He did claim to be God. However, the blasphemy charge was not valid, because He truly is God the Son. The Sanhedrin should have examined the evidence for His claim and would have found that His claim was true. I don’t think His answer using “I Am” was crucial to their charge.
Lastly, why send Him to Pilate? You are right in pointing out that the Sanhedrin did have the power to execute death sentences:
Jn 8:4-5 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”
Acts 7:58-59 When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
Then why bother with Pilate?
The Sanhedrin can stone Jesus for blasphemy:
Jn 10:31, 33 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. … The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
However, they were not stupid. On the one hand, they wanted to kill Jesus secretly. On the other hand, they were afraid of the people who believed Jesus to be the Messiah. If they put Him to death during the Passover, the people may riot. The Romans would come to squash the riot and remove the Sanhedrin’s power.
Mt 26:4-5 and they plotted together to seize Jesusby stealth and kill Him. 5 But they were saying, “Not during the festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people.”
Mk 14:1-2 Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him; 2 for they were saying, “Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people.”
Lk 22:2 The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.
So, to accomplish their plot, they tried to shift the blame to the Romans. If the people blamed Pilate, they are off the hook and can kill two birds with one stone.
I believe the crowd that shouted, “Hosanna” (Mt 21:9, 15; Mk 11:9-10; Jn 12:13) during His triumphal entry is not the same mob that shouted, “Crucify Him” (Mt 27:22-23; Mk 15:13-14; Lk 23:21; Jn 19:15). The former believed Jesus to be the Prophet from Nazareth (Mt 21:11). They would be busy preparing for the Passover and would not be at the Praetorium Good Friday morning around 6 AM. The latter included false witnesses (Mt 26:59-60; Mk 14:56-57), possibly paid off by the priests. The whole Council is not above using false testimony and breaking their own rules to convict Jesus to put Him to death. Framing the Romans was a small thing in comparison.
Q. Was Jesus admitting Himself as the Son of God (or Son of Man) (Lk 22:69-71) equivalent to admitting Himself as God? The OT appears to differentiate between the two by the verse Jesus quoted (Dan 7:13-14?). The Jews were expecting a Messiah to come. Was the claim to be the Messiah blasphemy against God? If Jesus was not claiming to be God, then why did the High Priest accuse Him of blasphemy against God? Or was His answer using the term “I Am” that led them to think so?
But if the Sanhedrin was right in their accusations against Jesus, then why did they send Him to Pilate instead of just executing Him of the said charge? Weren’t they eager to want Him dead? Did they really have no power under Roman rule to execute Jesus as they claimed (Jn 18:31)? Yet there were incidents in the gospels that they really tried to kill Him but failed, such as forcing Him down a cliff. If they really did not have the power to execute, then why had they attempted to stone the adulterous woman to death, actually stoned Stephen to death, and thought they had stoned Paul to death?
First, let us look at the text of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin in the synoptic gospels:
Mt 26:63-65 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy.
Mk 14:61-64But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.
Lk 22:67-71 “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”
Note that to the high priest (Caiaphas), the Christ (the Anointed, the Messiah) and the Son of God is the same person. “The Blessed One” is simply the Jews’ way of addressing God without speaking His name directly, to avoid breaking the Third Commandment – taking the name of the LORD in vain (Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11).
Now, let me answer your first question. Jesus’ reply:
“I am” to the high priest’s “Are You the Son of the Blessed One (i.e. God)?” in Mk 14:62, or
“Yes, I am” to the Sanhedrin’s “Are You the Son of God?” in Lk 22:70
was equivalent to claiming Himself to be God. This is based on the ordinary understanding of the Jews at that time, as seen in:
Jn 5:8 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
In those days Jews dare not even pronounce God’s name, let alone call Him their Father. Claiming to be God’s Son implies that He has the same nature or essence as the Father, and is, therefore, Himself God. That is why they accused Him of blasphemy because they thought He was only a man.
Next, what about the claim to be the Messiah? The title “Messiah” appears eight times in the NASB, twice in the OT, and six times in the NT:
Daniel 9:25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiahthe Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
Daniel 9:26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
Matthew 1:1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Matthew 1:16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
Matthew 2:1, 4 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, … Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.
John 1:41 He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ).
John 4:25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.”
Dan 9:25-26 is a prophecy concerning the timing of the Messiah in history, which the Lord fulfilled in His life. All the NT occurrences refer to Jesus in the text or context, so there is no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah. In fact, the Lord performed all three functions of the Messiah, the Anointed – prophet, priest, and king. Is the Messiah divine? Yes, based on:
Ps 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed(Messiah), saying,
Ps 2:7 I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.
As noted, the Son of God was a Messianic title that Caiaphas recognized. So the Sanhedrin also considered the claim to be the Messiah blasphemy.
Q. Is there a contradiction in Mt 11:11? Does it mean that John the Baptist is not in the kingdom of heaven?
A. There is no contradiction. Let’s see what the text says.
Mt 11:11Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
First, “among those born of women” means everyone. There is no exception, for we all have mothers. So Jesus was saying no one was greater than John the Baptist, at least up to the time He said it. Yet in the very next sentence, He said, “the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven” is greater than John. Some commentators tried to reconcile this by claiming that John the Baptist belonged to the old dispensation and was on the verge of the kingdom of heaven but not in it. Anyone who is in the kingdom belongs to the new dispensation, and under this fact is greater than he. Would this work? I do not believe so.
John indeed was the last of the old covenant prophets:
Mt 11:12-13 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been treated violently, and violent men take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Lk 16:16 The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John came; since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
But those who assert that John was not in the kingdom forgot about this:
Mt 8:11And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were certainly great, but not greater than John the Baptist according to Mt 11:11. However, they were reclining at the table in the kingdom of heaven. So how can they be in the kingdom but not John?
Others have tried to explain that the greatness of John the Baptist consisted of his position as Jesus’ forerunner:
Mt 3:3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, “The voice of one calling out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!’” (Also Mk 1:3; Lk 3;4)
Lk 1:17 And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of fathers back to their children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Of course, the Messiah had only one forerunner or herald – John, but in the Bible, God does not link greatness to one’s position, lineage, or wealth. There are bad kings in Scripture, powerful and rich, but are nobodies in God’s eyes. God sent prophets to rebuke them and call them to repent. The position never equals greatness.
So what could Mt 11:11 mean? I believe the key to interpreting this is in “the one who is least.” In the Greek NT, the word is mikroteros, which is a masculine singular adjective. Word-for-word English versions translated this accurately as singular, e.g.:
ESV Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Who is “the one who is least” in the kingdom? Not just anybody, for there is only One, the Lord Jesus Himself:
Php 2:8-9 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbledHimself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason, also, God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name.
Because the Lord humbled Himself to be the least in the kingdom, God exalted Him to be the greatest in the kingdom. This is consistent with the kingdom principle that greatness lies in humility and servanthood, not in lording it over others:
Mt 20:26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant. (Also Mk 10:43)
Mt 23:11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
Lk 9:48b for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.
Lk 22:26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest and the leader like the servant.
This is certainly paradoxical, but so are kingdom values compared to the world.
Q. Is there rank in the Kingdom of Heaven? Since we are all saved by grace (Eph 2:8-9) and there is no partiality with God (Rom 2:11), how can there be any rank in God’s Kingdom?
A. There are opposing views on this question, but my conclusion is yes, there is rank. Let me explain both sides.
No rank, all are equal. As you have cited, proponents base their view on:
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Rom 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.
Since salvation is by grace through faith and not works, no one can earn any merit before God. And since God is impartial, He treats all equally. He does not play favorites. Therefore all have equal standing before Him, and there is no such thing as greater or lesser in the Kingdom.
It is true that concerning salvation, i.e., before entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, all are sinners and stand guilty before God:
Rom 3:10-12 “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
Everyone depends on the finished work of Christ for his or her salvation. There are no exceptions.
However, after a person entered God’s Kingdom, God made it clear that He will treat His subjects according to what they have done, e.g.:
2 Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
The following illustrates how God rewards His servants differently, e.g.:
Lk 19:16-19 The first appeared, saying, ‘Master, your mina has madeten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.’ The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’ And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’
1 Co 3:12-15 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Depending on the quality of each man’s work, each will receive a reward or suffer a loss proportionate to the effort and attitude. The one in authority over ten cities, for instance, would be in a higher rank than the one over five cities.
Have rank, according to their work. The Bible is clear in addressing greatness in the Kingdom, e.g.:
Mt 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 18:3-4 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Opponents argued that those who break one of the least of these commandments are so unworthy that God kicked them out from the kingdom of heaven, just as He expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. According to them, since God excludes these lawbreakers from the kingdom, there are no differences in rank inside the kingdom. The counterargument is that the text says “in” the kingdom of heaven, so we have no authority to say that they are “outside.”
The word translated “annul” in the NASB is the Greek verb lyō, and literally means “to loose, loosen.” The ESV translated it as “relaxes,” and the NIV as “sets aside.” So, those called “least in the kingdom” are the ones who loosen or relax the requirements of even the least important commandments, while the ones called “great in the kingdom” are those who keep and teach them. The criterion is how seriously they take the commandments of God.
Furthermore, the greatest in the kingdom are those who humble themselves as children, trusting in their heavenly Father implicitly for everything. They depend on God totally, not on themselves. Why are they great? God makes them great:
Jas 4:10 Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.
1 Pet 5:6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt you at the proper time.
So I conclude that there are degrees of greatness in the Kingdom. I will leave the question of the greatness of John the Baptist which you also asked to another post.
Q. Mordecai was amongst one of the captives of King Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar (Esther 2:6). That was 597 B.C., about 10 to 11 years before the final deportation of King Zedekiah in 587 or 586 B.C. Even assuming Mordecai a young man and his cousin cum adopted daughter Esther a baby by then, considering that in the Book of Esther they were now under Persian rule instead of Babylonian rule, the scene was forwarded to the reign of the Medo-Persian kings almost sixty years later in 539 B.C. for Cyrus, or even much later for Xerxes or Artaxerxes as some scholars claimed. It would appear odd to think of Queen Esther as a young lady.
My main query was that why would Queen Esther as a Benjamite (Esther 2:5) be so kind as to also keep the rival Judahites when she had power just to keep her own Benjamite tribe only? King David in his deathbed reneged his promise to the Benjamite Shimei not to kill him (1 Kg 2:8-9), for the mere reason that Shimei had cursed him. The Benjamites were always with the other ten tribes not to submit to the Davidic family (1 Kg 12:20). Why did they suddenly change their minds (1 Kg 12:21-23)? Wasn’t it historically, Benjamin should be more attached to Joseph than Judah? The Benjamites were nearly exterminated by the Judahites during the times of the Judges (Judg 20, 21). What good did the Judahites do to the Benjamites that led to Queen Esther’s kind-heartedness?
I know what your problem is. You read Est 2:5-6 as Mordecai to be the one who had been exiled with Jeconiah in 597 BC. However, most scholars interpret these verses to mean Kish, Mordecai’s great grandfather, was taken into exile, not Mordecai himself:
Est 2:5-6 Now there was at the citadel in Susa a Jew whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been taken into exile from Jerusalem with the captives who had been exiled with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had exiled.
Since I do not have actual dates for these not well-known individuals, I will make educated guesses to construct a hypothetical timeline to assess the Bible’s reasonableness. The starting point is the Babylonian exile in 597 BC. Assuming an average of 30 years between father and son in each generation, there would be 90 years from Kish to Mordecai. If we assume Kish to be a 20-year-old young man when he was exiled, 90 years later i.e. in 507 BC, Mordecai would also be 20 years old.
Esther was Mordecai’s uncle’s daughter i.e. his cousin. But since Mordecai raised Esther as his adopted daughter, it is not unreasonable to assume that he would be 10-20 years older. For the sake of illustration, I have assumed their age difference to be one-half of the 30 years between generations, i.e. 15 years.
Est 2:7 He was bringing up Hadassah, that is Esther, his uncle’s daughter, for she had no father or mother. Now the young lady was beautiful of form and face, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai took her as his own daughter.
So if Mordecai were 20 years old in 507 BC, Esther would be no more than a 5-year-old child i.e. she was born in 512 BC.
Esther was Queen to Ahasuerus, known as Xerxes in secular history. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Xerxes was the Persian king from 486-465 BC. Chronology clues in Esther include:
Est 1:3 in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his princes and attendants, the army officers of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of his provinces being in his presence. So the Vashti banquet was in 483 BC.
Est 2:16 So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus to his royal palace in the tenth month which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign. In other words, Esther was presented to Ahasuerus and became Queen in 479 BC.
Now if Esther were born in 512 BC and she became queen in 479 BC, she would be 33 years old when she got married. The greater the gap between generations and the greater the age difference between Mordecai and Esther, the younger Esther would be when she became queen. This is all hypothetical of course, but it demonstrates that the bible is reasonable when measured against known history.
Next, let us turn our attention to your main query – Esther’s kindness towards the other tribes. I think this has more to do with her personality and how she was raised than a sudden change in the behavior of Judahites concerning Benjamites. Note the following:
Est 2:9 Now the young lady pleased him and found favor with him. So he quickly provided her with her cosmetics and food, gave her seven choice maids from the king’s palace, and transferred her and her maids to the best place in the harem.
Est 2:15 Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai who had taken her as his daughter, came to go in to the king, she did not request anything except what Hegai, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the women, advised. And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her.
Est 2:17 The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she found favor and kindness with him morethan all the virgins so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti.
Esther found favor with everyone she dealt with, whether Hegai, all who saw her, or Ahasuerus. She had a pleasant character that pleases everyone. Her nature was kind to all people, not just Benjamites.
Secondly, Mordecai trained her well:
Est 4:14 For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?”
Est 4:16 “Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.”
Esther realized that the fate of all the Jews was at stake, not just other tribes. Accordingly, she risked her life for the sake of all her people, whether Benjamites or other tribes.
I believe the reasons you raised have alternative explanations:
1 Kgs 2:8-9 Behold, there is with you Shimei the son of Gera the Benjamite, of Bahurim; now it was he who cursed me with a violent curse on the day I went to Mahanaim. But when he came down to me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the Lord, saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword.’ 9 Now, therefore, do not let him go unpunished, for you are a wise man; and you will know what you ought to do to him, and you will bring his gray hair down to Sheol withblood.”
This is more a case of David taking revenge against Shimei who cursed him while he was down than with the fact that he was a Benjamite. There is no need to escalate a personal vengeance to a tribal level.
Regarding the relationship between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, it does look odd when v 20 (Judah alone) is juxtaposed beside v 21 (Judah and Benjamin):
1 Kgs 12:20 It came about when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, that they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel. None but the tribe ofJudahfollowed the house of David.
1 Kgs 12:21-23 Now when Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judahand the tribe ofBenjamin, 180,000 chosen men who were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. 22 But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying, 23 “Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the house ofJudah and Benjamin and to the rest of the people, saying …
There are at least two reasons for Benjamin switching sides from Israel to Judah. The first is in fulfillment of the Lord’s judgment prophesied by Ahijah in the preceding chapter:
1 Kgs 11:29-32 It came about at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had clothed himself with a new cloak, and both of them were alone in the field. 30 Then Ahijah took hold of the new cloak which was on him and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 He said to Jeroboam, “Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes32 (but he will have one tribe, for the sake of My servant David andfor the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel).
When Solomon turned from God and followed idolatry, the Lord punished him and Judah by tearing ten tribes from his son Rehoboam and gave it to Jeroboam.
Why Benjamin and not another tribe? This has to do with the second reason. If you examine a map of the division of the promised land to the twelve tribes of Israel, the two tribes which are closest to Judah geographically are:
Simeon – whose land is completely surrounded by Judah, and
Benjamin – which is immediately north of Judah but shared Jerusalem with Judah.
The key is in the phrase “for the sake of Jerusalem.” Many people think that since Jerusalem was the capital of Judah, it must be on Judah’s land. Not according to God’s plan given to Joshua:
Josh 18:28 and Zelah, Haeleph and the Jebusite (that is, Jerusalem), Gibeah, Kiriath; fourteen cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the sons of Benjamin according to their families.
Jdg 1:21 But the sons ofBenjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.
1 Chr 9:13 Some of the sons of Judah, of the sons ofBenjamin and of the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh lived inJerusalem:
2 Chr 11:1 Now when Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled the house of Judah andBenjamin, 180,000 chosen men who were warriors, to fight against Israel to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam.
I believe since Benjamin’s base was in Jerusalem, and much of her people lived in Jerusalem together with the sons of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh, Benjamin decided to side with Judah rather than Israel. Instead, the sons of Simeon chose to migrate north rather than be surrounded by Judah on all sides. It was not a sudden change of heart by the Benjamites in their relationship with Judah, just political expediency.
No. The “mark of the beast” appears only 6 times in the Bible, all in the book of Revelation:
Rev 13:17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.
Rev 14:9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Rev 16:2 So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and it became a loathsome and malignant sore on the people who had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his image.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him, the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Note the following:
The mark of the beast (Antichrist) is linked with the worship of the beast and his image (Rev 14:9, 11, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4). Receiving the mark means pledging allegiance to and obeying the beast. A person worships the beast of his/her own volition. There is no obeying the beast or receiving his mark inadvertently.
The false prophet forces all (everyone) to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, or else they will not be able to buy or sell i.e. do any financial transaction to survive.
Those who receive the mark will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb (Rev 14:10). The torment is forever (v 11) because they have chosen to obey the Antichrist rather than Christ.
Those who had not received the mark will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years (Rev 20:6).
Some pastors and churches claimed that the mRNA vaccine changes the DNA of those who received it. They argued that God created man and his DNA in His image. By allowing their DNA to be modified, those who are vaccinated placed their faith in the vaccine rather than God to save them, and are therefore receiving the mark of the beast. I totally disagree. The Bible is clear in coupling receiving the mark of the beast with worshiping the Antichrist. No one is subjecting themselves to worship the Antichrist by receiving the vaccine. They are receiving the shots to immunize themselves against the COVID-19 virus. Period. They are not being marked for the beast unknowingly.
Furthermore, in terms of the timing of the mark of the beast, many futurists believe that it will come during the Great Tribulation, the second 3.5 years of the 7-year Tribulation. Although we are hearing of wars and rumors of wars, and there are famines and earthquakes, these are merely the beginning of birth pangs and not yet the end. The abomination of desolation, the lawless one, has not yet been revealed, so the mark of the beast is still to come. Since neither the purpose nor the timing of the COVID-19 vaccine fits the mark of the beast, I reject the speculation by over-zealous believers to equate the vaccine to be the beast’s mark.
RayKLiu 