Heliocentrism

Q. Is the Church still holding on to geocentrism as in Galileo’s days? If the Church recognizes heliocentrism is true, how can any Christian think the sun is created after the earth? I think Genesis 1:16 was written in Hebrew without a past participle as we understand it today. The sun was created in Genesis 1:1 when God created the universe, and He was outside of it. In verse 2, God came into the universe. Genesis 1:3 is a different day when God started to create things on earth, and he was in the universe. Genesis 2 gives a different chronology of creation and makes me think that it is not trying to give a chronological account of the creation, just like the books of the Bible, maybe for the same reasons.

A. Geocentrism, or the geocentric model, is the belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, stars, and planets orbiting around it. Heliocentrism, or the heliocentric model, is the belief that the sun is at the universe’s center, with the earth and planets revolving around it. [Technically, the sun is NOT at the center of the universe. It is on one of the spiraling arms of the Milky Way. And our galaxy is just one of the millions or billions of galaxies in our universe.]

No, the Church is not holding onto Geocentrism. That was the 17^th century and prior. While most Christians believe in heliocentrism, those who trust the Bible to be inspired and inerrant also believe in the order of creation as recorded in Genesis. The issue today is not so much on cosmology (Geocentrism versus heliocentrism) but on the “Book of Nature” versus the “Book of Scripture,” whether Science or the Bible is the final authority on matters of faith. I am sad to say that science increasingly has the upper hand, despite its tentative conclusions, often superseded by the latest discoveries as men realize how little they know. This is particularly sad when scientists make assertions beyond their field of expertise, and people and the media follow their doctorates, even though they may know little about Scripture. I was a professional engineer before I became a pastor, grounded in science and the Bible, so I know what I am talking about.

Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement for Genesis chapter 1 – that God is the Creator of the universe. Let me quote Genesis 1:1-5 to respond to your comments:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light” and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.

Note the following:

• The earth, not the sun, was created on Day 1. Since it was formless and void, it was not like the earth we observe now. You might call it the creation of matter out of nothing (i.e., no preexisting material), without structure.
• In v 3, God created light, still before the creation of the sun. Commentators understand this to refer to the creation of energy. It was still Day 1, as Day 2 was not described until v 6-8.

The sun is part of the heavenly bodies created on Day 4:

Gen 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day (the sun) and the lesser light to govern the night (the moon); He made the stars also.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness, and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

Please note that the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created on Day 4. People ask, “How can there be light before the sun was created?” The sun was not the source of energy; God was. This is true not only at the beginning of creation but also at the end:

• Rev 21:23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
• Rev 22:5 And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them, and they will reign forever and ever.

What’s my point? It is that while the Church had made mistakes in its understanding of science, the same can be said of atheist scientists when they make dogmatic assertions about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the supernatural. They are to be commended for their pursuit of truth in the physical realm, but disregarding the spiritual dimension when they cannot observe or measure it is arrogant. Both sides can learn from each other.

For me, the Book of Scripture trumps the Book of Nature because only God is omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible. Human knowledge is only a tiny fraction of intelligence in our universe. How can we who know so little shake our fists in God’s face and ask Him to step aside?

David’s Census

Q. Why does 2 Sam 24: 1 say God incited David to take a census while 1 Chron 21:1 says Satan incited David to take a census? Did God initiate it, or did He allow Satan to do that?

Skeptics have jumped on this as a contradiction in the Bible. They claim this “proves” that the Bible is “full of errors” and cannot be trusted. In fact, it is the skeptics’ reasoning that is flawed. Logically, a contradiction exists only if X and not-X are affirmed simultaneously. For example,

1. God incited David and God did not incite David, or
2. Satan incited David and Satan did not incite David.

Had the Bible affirmed either 1 or 2, there would be a contradiction. But the Bible did none of that.

The critics assumed that either 2 Sam 24:1 is correct or 1 Chron 21:1 is correct but not both. Alternatively, if both are correct, then God and Satan are the same person or entity, which is equally unacceptable. Either way, they concluded that the Bible is unreliable.

But their presumption that this is an “either/or” case is wrong. It is a “both/and” but at different levels.

Let me explain. First, let us examine the texts:

• 2 Sam 24:1 Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
• 1 Chron 21:1 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

There are three levels of agents involved. The object of the anger of the Lord, or Satan’s antagonism, is Israel, which will be punished. The immediate agency that led to Israel’s punishment is David’s numbering Israel and Judah.

The second level or direct agent behind David’s census is Satan, according to 1 Chron 21:1. Satan is always against God’s people and uses whatever means to hurt and destroy them. While Satan is powerful, he does not have the freedom to do whatever he pleases, e.g.:

• Job 1:12 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.
• Job 2:6 So the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life.”
• Lk 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;

What Satan can do to Job or Simon or any of God’s people is only what God allows him to do. He cannot act unless God grants him permission.

At the third or highest level, the ultimate agent behind any action is God, as God is sovereign:

• Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
• Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

God makes everything work out according to His plan, yet He never tempts anyone. What He does is sometimes He allows bad things to happen, then overrules the evil plans to bring about good to accomplish His purpose:

• Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God;” for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
• Gen 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

So, both Satan and the Lord incited David, but at different levels and purposes. Satan meant evil against David and Israel to bring them harm. God allowed the numbering to lead David to repentance. 1 Chron 21 and 2 Sam 24 are complementary, not contradictory.

Magi’s Visit

Q. Did the Magi visit take place when Jesus was just born or when He was around one to two years old? Some commentators opt for the latter because Jesus was described as a child, not a baby, living in a room, not a manger (Mt 2:11). Also, Herod had ordered the murder of children aged two or less (Mt 2:16), not the murder of babies. But the problem with this interpretation is that Joseph and his family had to take another trip to Bethlehem when Jesus was around one to two years old. And the worship of a newborn King would make more sense than the worship of a one-year-old child.

You go into minute details much more than I do, but here is my opinion. The visit of the magi is recorded only in Matthew, so let us start there for clues:

• Mt 2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying,
• Mt 2:7-8 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.”
• Mt 2:11 After coming into the house, they saw the Child with Mary His mother, and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
• Mt 2:14-16 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.
• Mt 2:19-20 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, “Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child’s life are dead.”
• Mt 2:23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

While the other gospels do not record the magi’s visit, Luke does record Jesus’ birth and infancy, so we can glean evidence from Luke 2 as well:

• Lk 2:4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,
• Lk 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son, and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.
• Lk 2:21-22 And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days for their purification according to the Law of Moses were completed they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord
• Lk 2:24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
• Lk 2:39 When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth.

There are three events in Mt 2 and Lk 2 (Jesus’ birth, Mary’s purification together with Jesus’ presentation, and Herod’s slaughter of the children) we can use to estimate the timing of the magi’s visit. Let us examine Mt 2 first. Note the following:

• The magi arrived in Jerusalem after Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1), so they could not have been there when He was born.
• The magi met the child Jesus in a house (Mt 2:11). The newborn Jesus was laid in a manger as there was no room for Joseph and Mary in the inn (Lk 2:7). Therefore some concluded that considerable time must have elapsed since Jesus was a child and no longer a baby.
• In addition, Herod executed all the male children from two years old and under (Mt 2:16). Since Herod determined the exact time the star appeared, which was believed to be the time Jesus was born, some commentators suggested that Jesus could be up to two years old by then.
• This is possible, but it may not be up to two years as some had thought. This is because the word “Child” in Mt 2 (v 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21) is the same Greek word paidion in:
  • Lk 2:17 – when Jesus was just born,
  • Lk 2:27 – when Jesus was 40 days old (purification rites v 22),
  • Lk 2:40 – from Jesus as an infant to a mature child.

So “child” can refer to a range in terms of age and does not automatically mean it is older than a baby.

• As to assuming Jesus’ age based on Herod slaying all male children under two years old, again it is possible, but not definite. Herod could be playing it safe by leaving a wide margin of error to make sure that he kills the Child Jesus. So, we cannot fix the time of the magi’s visit based on Matthew alone.
• Let us see what Luke can add. The second set of clues is the Mosaic purification rites in Lev 12:
  • V 2-4 ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days. She shall not touch any consecrated thing nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.
  • V 6 When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one-year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
  • V 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
• So the laws of motherhood in Lev 12 state that Mary shall be unclean for a total of 40 days after giving birth to Jesus. After the days of purification, she can make atonement by offering a burnt offering and a sin offering and present Jesus to the Lord at the same time.
• Lk 2:24 said she offered a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, which means she cannot afford a lamb according to Lev 12:8. This would place the magi’s visit after Jesus’ presentation at the Temple, as the magi presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which could be converted to cash to purchase a lamb. But they do not have that option.
• We can check the reasonableness of this deduction by estimating the distance and traveling time involved. Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, a distance of ninety miles, for the census registration. Assuming a pregnant woman can walk at an average speed of 2.5 miles per hour for 8 hours a day, the journey would take 4.5 days one-way. The distance from Bethlehem to Jerusalem is only 5.5 miles, just over two hours walk at the same pace. That is why Joseph and Mary stayed in Bethlehem until after Jesus’ presentation in the Temple. To return to Nazareth shortly after giving birth, then make a return trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem would be too strenuous for the young couple nursing a newborn.
• The following point is my conjecture. I believe after Jesus’ presentation, the family returned to Bethlehem, where the magi visited them. I know Lk 2:39 said they returned to Nazareth after performing everything according to the Law, but v 40 continued to say, “The Child continued to grow and become strong,” and Luke omitted the magi’s visit altogether. I interpret Lk 2:39-40 as “telescopic” statements which describe the end result after their flight into Egypt, not immediately after Jesus’ presentation.
• My sequence of the key events, using all available biblical data and the least number of assumptions, is, therefore:
  • Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Lk 2:4-5),
  • Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Lk 2:7),
  • His presentation in the Temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:21-38),
  • The visit of the magi in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1-12),
  • The flight to Egypt (Mt 2:13-15),
  • The return to Nazareth (Mt 2:19-23; Lk 2:39-40).

How soon was the magi’s visit after Jesus’ presentation? The Bible did not say. I expect the time gap to be short since Jesus’ identity as the Child might be exposed during His presentation. So possibly within days, not months. Hope this helps!

More on Praying for Healing

Q. Acts 10:38 “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.”  This verse seems to imply that generally, the sick are those oppressed by the devil. Shouldn’t we pray for forgiveness of sins whenever we pray for healing? The Lord’s prayer says we should pray for forgiveness of sins when we pray to God.

Why should we pray without ceasing for physical healing when we are told by these verses?

• 2 Corinthians 5:1 Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is dismantled, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
• 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 Our suffering is light and temporary and is producing for us an eternal glory that is greater than anything we can imagine. We do not look for things that can be seen but for things that cannot be seen. Things that can be seen are only temporary. But things that cannot be seen last forever.

Instead of praying for healing, is it enough to ask God to keep us from temptation (since sickness is usually from the devil) and deliver us from evil? God’s thoughts are higher than ours. I pray for healing for my loved ones because of my selfish agenda. There seems to be no reason for saved Christians to pray for deliverance from their own demise.

Some diseases are clearly caused by Satanic or demonic oppression, e.g.,

• Mt 17:15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill, for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. V18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.
• Lk 13:16 And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?
• Mk 9:17 And one of the crowd answered Him, “Teacher, I brought You my son, possessed with a spirit which makes him mute. V25 When Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You deaf and mute spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again.”
• 2 Co 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself!

However, there are many passages on healing every kind of disease and sickness that make no reference to demons and unclean spirits. So it is incorrect to say that “generally the sick are those oppressed by the devil”:

• Matthew 4:23 Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.
• Matthew 9:35 Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.
• Luke 4:40 While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them.
• Luke 6:19 And all the people were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all.
• Luke 9:2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing. V6 Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. V11 But the crowds were aware of this and followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing.
• Acts 4:22 for the man [the lame beggar] was more than forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed.

Should we pray for forgiveness of sins whenever we pray for healing? Diseases are not necessarily caused by sin:

• Jn 9:2-3 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents. But it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

But as you rightly pointed out, when we pray (Lk 11:2), the Lord’s Prayer instructs us to pray for forgiveness of sins:

• Mt 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

So my principle is to confess and repent to keep short accounts with God.

The context of “pray without ceasing” is 1 Thes 5:

• 16 Rejoice always;
• 17 pray without ceasing;
• 18 in everything give thanks, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

It means we need a continuing attitude of prayer, not praying for physical healing continuously. 2 Co 4:17-18 and 5:1 help us to have an eternal perspective instead of worrying about our short walk on earth.

As I demonstrated above, sickness is not usually from the devil. Some are, but not most. We should pray:

• Mt 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil.

But remember the Apostle Paul did pray about his thorn in the flesh:

• 2 Co 12:8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.

So I do not consider it selfish for Christians to pray for healing unless they want only to be healed without obedience. Those prayers are not according to God’s will and will not be granted.

Colt or Donkey?

Should be riding on the colt, not the donkey!

Q. My question is whether Jesus rode on a donkey into Jerusalem (Mk 11:2; Lk 19:29-35; Jn 12:14-15) or on a donkey and a colt (Mt 21:1-11)? If the interpretation is really a donkey and a colt, why need two animals? It is difficult physically to yoke a young animal with an old one as the young will tend to walk faster. Is this theory trying to show that under Jesus, nothing is impossible?

This is a classic question on the harmony of the gospels, so let us start by examining what the gospels, together with the OT passage quoted, said.

Mt 21:1-8	Mk 11:1-7	Lk 19:29-35	Jn 12:12-15	Zech 9:9
When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you. And immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, Gentle and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them, and He sat on the coats.	As they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it and immediately he will send it back here.” They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street, and they untied it. Some of the bystanders were saying to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. They brought the colt to Jesus and put their coats on it, and He sat on it.	When He approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount that is called Olivet, He sent two of the disciples, saying, “Go into the village ahead of you. There, as you enter, you will find a colt tied on which no one yet has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of it.’” So those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, “Why are you untying the colt?” They said, “The Lord has need of it.” They brought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and put Jesus on it.	On the next day, the large crowd who had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.” Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written, “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”	Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Matthew said a donkey and a colt (two animals), while Mark, Luke, and John said a colt or a young donkey (one animal). Who is right? If either party is wrong, what does that say about the reliability of Scripture? What can we trust? Thankfully, the Bible is God’s word and inerrant, and both parties are correct. The skeptics have jumped on an apparent contradiction without carefully thinking it through. Here is my observation and interpretation:

• There were two animals, a donkey, and her colt. Jesus rode on the colt, not the donkey, nor the two animals together like in stunt-riding. Matthew gave the most detail as he was proving that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecy in Zech 9:9, which said there are two animals, a donkey, and a colt. Mark, Luke, and John focused on the colt Jesus rode without mentioning the donkey. It is a difference in emphasis, not a contradiction.
• Logically, a contradiction exists if Mark, Luke, and John mentioned that there was only one animal, but they did not. They never denied the presence of the second donkey. Suppose my friend Al and his acquaintance Bob drove by my house and stopped to chat. The next day I mentioned to a colleague that Al came to my house, but did not mention Bob. Did I contradict myself? Of course not. I simply stated that I chatted with my friend Al. Period. Bob was not my friend and a significant part of the conversation. There is no contradiction.
• Why two animals? The Bible did not give a direct explanation, except that it was in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 in all details. The Greek word for donkey in Mt 21:2 is ὄνον (noun, accusative case, feminine, singular.) The Greek word for colt is πῶλον (noun, accusative case, masculine, singular.) So, likely the donkey was the colt’s mother. Both Mark and Luke described the colt as “on which no one yet has ever sat.” Since the colt was young and had not carried a rider before, possibly the Lord asked His disciples to take its mother along to keep it calm.
• Neither Matthew nor Zechariah mentioned that the animals were yoked together. It is pure speculation by some commentators. Nor did they say anything about riding the donkey first when the road was steep, then the colt later when the road was level. That is a possibility imagined by commentators, again without solid evidence. My principle is Occam’s razor – that “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” When there are several possible explanations, the simplest one without unnecessary complications is preferred. The simplest here is that the donkey walked beside her colt to calm his nerves. There is no need for yoked-together or taking turns or stunt rides.
• The suggestions that Matthew is either more (1) meticulous because his audience was Jewish; or (2) prone to exaggeration are both unwarranted. The Holy Spirit inspired him just like the other bible book authors and kept him from error. No more, no less. The commentators themselves have conjectured with hard evidence.
• Lastly, on the NIV’s wording. The NIV is based on dynamic equivalence or thought for thought. My go-to translation is the NASB which is more literal or word for word. When you examine Mt 21:5b and Zech 9:9b in the table above, you have:
  • Mt 21:5b Gentle and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.
  • Zech 9:9b Humble and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

The word translated as “and” in the NIV is the Greek word καὶ, both in the Greek NT and the Septuagint OT, and translated as “even” in the NASB both in Mt 21:5 and Zech 9:9. It does not mean Jesus was riding on a donkey and a colt simultaneously. Instead, it clarifies what kind of donkey – a colt – the foal of a donkey. Some people prefer the readability of the NIV but I find the NASB more helpful as I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.

Do Not Judge?

Q. A church brother reminded me not to judge another church brother in a private disciplinary hearing (as a deacon I had to participate in such hearing). He said only God can judge. Of course, Jesus said do not judge or we will be judged (Mt 7:1). So I was thinking hard about why Simon Peter had judged the Magical Simon in Acts 8:20 when he told the latter that he and his money would perish. Still a puzzle to me.

When Christians confront unbelievers about their inconsistencies, “do not judge” is one of the most common verses non-believers throw back at them. It is also one of the most misinterpreted verses in the Bible, as it does not mean we are prohibited from judging under any circumstances.

Consider the context of Matthew 7:

• Mt 7:1 Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
• Mt 7:6a Do not give what is holy to dogs and do not throw your pearls before swine. How do you determine if someone’s character is like a dog or swine unless you judge what they do?
• Mt 7:15-16a Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. How do you take heed against people who are wolves in sheep’s clothing if you do not judge their fruits?

Why would Jesus even say:

• Jn 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment

If He forbid judging under all circumstances?

Or consider what Paul said:

• 1 Co 5:3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
• 1 Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
• 1 Co 6:2-3 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
• 1 Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.
• 1 Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
• 1 Co 11:31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.

Why would Paul judge the incestuous brother, instruct the Corinthians to judge those within the church, or tell them saints will judge the world and angels if we are not allowed to judge at all?

The problem is not with God giving self-contradictory statements – He is all-knowing and does not make mistakes – but people misunderstanding the Bible and quoting it out of context. What then does the Lord mean by “do not judge?”

The key is the context. The immediate context is:

• Mt 7:2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

So the Lord is saying do not judge using wrong standards of measurement. He then gave two examples of wrong ways to measure:

• Mt 7:3-5 – having a double standard, excusing yourself but being harsh on others.
• Mt 7:6 – not discriminating in exercising judgment.

In the wider context of other NT passages, wrong judgment includes:

• Judging without giving the person an opportunity to explain himself, hearing his side of the story – Jn 7:51 Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?
• Judging according to our prejudices and feelings, instead of the facts – Jn 8:15a You judge according to the flesh.
• Judging with a self-righteous attitude – Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for, in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
• Judging with contempt, looking down on others – Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Rom 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
• Judging prematurely, hastily, when we do not know hidden things and motives – 1 Co 4:5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.

The above principles are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The bottom line is that we are commanded to discern and in that sense allowed to judge, but not in a condemning, critical and hypocritical way. That is why we need wisdom from above. Hope that helps.

The Twelve

Q. Paul said in 1Cor 15:5-8 that Jesus appeared in His resurrection to Simon Peter first before appearing to The Twelve again. This seems to support the statement by the two Emmaus disciples to the remaining eleven apostles in the Upper Room just before Jesus’ second appearance there, that Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter earlier. However, why did Paul say “The Twelve” when there were evidently only eleven of them?

At that time, the casting of the lot for Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot had not taken place yet (Acts 1:9-26), and whether Judas Iscariot had committed suicide (Mt 27:3-11) was immaterial as he should not be joining the other eleven again. What is the problem of saying eleven apostles as there were verses that mention this exact number of apostles (Mt 28:16; Mk 16:14; Lk 24:9, 33).

Had “The Twelve” become an icon to be so coined, so that the eleven apostles had to find another witness (Matthias) to make it up to the number 12? This seems to be analogical to the Old Testament notion of always referring to The Twelve Tribes, and not one time to Eleven Tribes or Thirteen Tribes, by sometimes including and something excluding Levi and/or some other tribe. Lacking one apostle should have no great impact on the effort to fulfill the Great Commission. Why did they insist on making it up to twelve?

Talking about The Twelve Tribes, was it because Jesus had made a promise twice to The Twelve (Apostles, not Tribes), one time on the way to enter Jerusalem (Mt 19:16-30) and the other time during the Last Supper (Lk 22:30), that in future in heaven they would be there to judge the Twelve Tribes?

Was this promise also made to Judas Iscariot then, but through his later betrayal, the promise had been shifted to Matthias instead? Of course, we would not expect Judas Iscariot to be in heaven in the future, but some bible scholars said that the promise had not been made to Judas Iscariot because the Bible had not mentioned the number of apostles in Mt 19:16-30, so Judas Iscariot might not be there (though The Twelve should have been together on the way to enter Jerusalem), while in the latter scene, Judas Iscariot had already left when Jesus made that promise. (Putting Lk 22:23 in parallel with Jn 13:22-29, and Lk 22:29 in parallel with Jn 13:31 so that Judas Iscariot’s departure in Jn 13:30 happened before Jesus made the promise to the remaining eleven in Lk 22:30).

Overall why is the number Twelve so important that made Paul say “The Twelve” when there were only eleven, and also made the remaining eleven casting lot for Matthias to make the number up to twelve?

Yes, “the twelve,” without the noun disciples it qualifies, had become the short nickname of the twelve apostles, e.g.

• Mt 26:14 Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
• Mt 26:47 While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people.
• Mk 3:16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter),
• See also Mk 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43; Lk 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 30, 47; Jn 6:67, 70, 71; 20:24; Acts 6:2; 1 Co 15:5

There were only ten apostles present (excluding Thomas) when the Lord appeared to them in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday evening, and eleven (including Thomas) eight days later. But by the time the gospels were written, everyone understood that “the twelve” meant the disciples the Lord chose to be with Him, learn from Him, and sent out to preach. That is why Paul simply wrote “the twelve” without qualification.

Why did the Lord choose only twelve apostles? I believe you are right in linking “the twelve” to the twelve tribes of Israel.

In the OT, the twelve tribes were God’s chosen people:

• Ex 19:5-6 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

However, Israel did not obey God’s voice and keep His covenant, so God chose the Church as the His new people:

• 1 Pet 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles:

• Eph 2:19-20 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.

The relationship between the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles is given in:

• Mt 19:28 And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
• Lk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
• Rev 21:12 It (the New Jerusalem) had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates, twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
• Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Notice that:

• The Church’s foundation consists of the apostles (NT) and prophets (OT). There is continuity, not discontinuity.
• The Church itself consists of both Jews and Gentiles. The new people of God, therefore, do not replace but subsume the old chosen people.
• The New Jerusalem consists of the twelve tribes as gates and twelve apostles as foundation stones. They are complementary, not substitutional.
• The apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The new covenant supersedes the old.

Hence I believe the Lord purposely chose twelve to be His apostles to maintain the continuity between the old and the new covenant.

As to whether the promise to sit in judgment of the twelve tribes was made to Judas Iscariot as part of the Twelve, the text was silent. My opinion is NO, based on:

• Jn 17:12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
• 2 Thes 2:3 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,

The Lord called Judas the son of perdition or son of destruction, the name of the man of lawlessness or the Antichrist. Jesus knew who would betray Him from the beginning, and had given him chance after chance, without naming him directly, to repent, but he did not. To argue that Judas was one of the Twelve and received the promise to judge is unreasonable.

The Upper Room

Q. I have a question on Jesus’ post-resurrection trip to Galilee and He twice appeared in the Upper Room in Jerusalem (commonly called Cenacle, or Mark’s House). Why did He want to go to Galilee immediately after the resurrection and was this Upper Room really in Jerusalem?

The question is whether the Upper Room where Jesus’ first and second appearance took place was in Jerusalem, or in Galilee. It would make more sense if it were in Galilee because the disciples were all dispersed when Jesus was arrested (Mk 14:50), and with the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, it would be safer not to gather again in the room where the last supper took place. The pre-arranged Galilean trip should help to gather the dispersed groups together again. That is my conjecture only on why He would immediately go to Galilee.

Is there any other compelling reason for this trip though? Also, the view of the Upper Room in Galilee seems to run against the traditional understanding that the Upper Room was in Jerusalem. Where do you think this Upper Room should be?

1. I believe in the Bible’s inerrancy. The Upper Room in which the Lord first appeared to His disciples was in Jerusalem:
2. Lk 24:33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them.
3. Jn 20:19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

Your speculation that the Upper Room might be in Galilee was based on:

• Mt 28:7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”
• Mt 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
• Mk 16:7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

He did meet them in Galilee, just not on Resurrection Sunday as you assumed, but at least eight days after the resurrection:

• Jn 21:1 After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way.
• Jn 21:14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after He was raised from the dead.

You can see this clearly by reviewing the timeline of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances recorded in the NT:

The appearance to the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee was His seventh, not the first. All the first six were in Jerusalem or on the road to Emmaus near Jerusalem.

Why go to Galilee? Galilee was not an important city politically, economically, or prophetically:

• Jn 7:52 They answered him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

Technically the chief priests and Pharisees were wrong, as both Tishbe (Elijah’s hometown) and Gath-Hepher (Jonah’s hometown) were in Galilee:

• 1 Kgs 17:1 Now Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead, said to Ahab, ….
• 2 Kgs 14:25 … according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was of Gath-Hepher,  

While Galilee was not important strategically, it was important to the disciples:

• Most disciples were from Galilee:
  • Acts 1:11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
  • Acts 2:7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?

You are right in pointing out that it would be safer for them to go home and be among family and friends than to stay in Jerusalem where their Master was crucified.

• Jerusalem was a cruel and sad place for them, and a change of scene would be good for them to recover from grief and shock. Many Jews gather in Jerusalem for the Passover, returning home after the annual pilgrimage. It was natural for the disciples to do the same.
• Many disciples were fishermen. They had given up their profession to follow the Lord for three years. With their Teacher gone and their hope dashed, it is reasonable for them to return to Galilee to maintain their livelihood.
• But the most important reason is not physical, emotional, or economical. It is spiritual – the Lord called them in Galilee:
  • Mt 4:18, 21 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. … Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them.
  • Jn 1:43, 45 The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, “Follow Me.” … Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

The Lord wanted them to return to their first love, where they first followed Him, with a fresh understanding of who He is – declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4).

• In particular, I believe the Lord wanted to renew His calling for them to catch men. Luke 5 and John 21 both recorded a big catch of fish:
  • Lk 5:1 Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret;
  • Lk 5:9-10 For amazement had seized him and all his companions because of the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men.”
  • Jn 21:6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch.” So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.

They had gone back to being fishermen, but through the miraculous catch of fish, He reminded them of their calling as fishers of men. After that, they returned to Jerusalem to await the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The gospels did not explain why Jesus went ahead of His disciples to Galilee. The above are my conjectures. Hope they help.

God’s Fairness?

Q. Why does Ex 20:5 say, “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”? Yet Ezk 18:20 says, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father”?

A. Ex 20:5 is not the only verse on the subject:

• Ex 34:7b Yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.
• Num 14:18 The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.
• Deut 5:9 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Ex 20:5 follows and elaborates Ex 20:4, the Second Commandment prohibiting idolatry. It gives a stern warning on the severe consequences of sin as a deterrence.

For example, parents addicted to drugs, who have venereal diseases, who are abusive, often pass on the ill effects of their sins to their children. The third and the fourth generations mean the extended family unit. Basically, the sinner can see the devastating harm done to his descendants.

What this passage is not saying is, “God punishes the children for the parent’s sins.” Suffer the consequences? Yes. But personally responsible? No! God is just and will not punish offsprings who are innocent for the forefathers’ sins.

What Ezk 18:20 and parallel passages say is that the sinner will be personally responsible for his own sin:

• Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.
• 2 Kgs 14:6 But the sons of the slayers he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses. As the Lord commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin.”

So, contrary to skeptics’ claims, the Bible does not contradict itself.

Longevity of Man?

Q. God had made human lives to be 120 years before the Flood in Gen 6:3. Why is it that men still live so long after the Flood (e.g., Gen 11:10-23, at least up to Serug)? I notice they continued to decrease in life span from generation to generation.

A. First, what does the text say?

· NASB95 Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

Second, what does it mean? You interpreted “his days shall be 120 years” to mean human life span, which is what some contemporary translations have done, e.g.:

· CJB Adonai said, “My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore, their life span is to be 120 years.”

· CEV Then the Lord said, “I won’t let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than 120 years.”

· ERV Then the Lord said, “People are only human. I will not let my Spirit be troubled by them forever. I will let them live only 120 years.”

Other versions include EXB, GW, GNT, ICB, ISV, MSG, NCB, NCV, NLT, and VOICE.

The problem with this interpretation is that, as you have noticed, Noah’s descendants lived much longer than 120 years for twelve generations, e.g.:

· Shem: 100+500=600 years, Gen 11:10-11;

· Arpachshad: 35+403=438 years, Gen 11:12-13;

· Shelah: 30+403=433 years, Gen 11:14-15;

· Eber: 34+430=464 years, Gen 11:16-17;

· Peleg: 30+209=239 years, Gen 11:18-19;

· Reu: 32+207=239 years, Gen 11:20-21;

· Serug: 30+200=230 years, Gen 11:22-23;

· Nahor: 29+119=148 years, Gen 11:23-25;

· Terah: 205 years, Gen 11:32;

· Abraham: 175 years, Gen 25:7;

· Isaac: 180 years, Gen 35:28;

· Jacob: 147 years, Gen 47:28.

It was not until Joseph (110 years, Gen 50:22, 26) that men’s longevity dropped below 120 years. Now, would God say something He does not mean? Of course not!

Next, let us note the context:

· Gen 6:1-2 Now it came about when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

· Gen 6:5-7 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the Earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The problem was the sons of God (fallen angels) taking wives from the daughters of men and engaging in prohibited sexual union. The cause was Noah’s and prior generations. The punishment was the blotting out of man. If Gen 6:3 refers to shortening man’s life span to 120 years, then the punishment would extend to generations not even born and have not contributed to the problem, which would be unjust.

Accordingly, an alternative interpretation is that the 120 years refers not to man’s life span but to the period God gave warning to Noah’s generation to repent or face the consequences. This meaning was chosen by The Living Bible:

· Then Jehovah said, “My Spirit must not forever be disgraced in man, wholly evil as he is. I will give him 120 years to mend his ways.”

This would be fair and conforms to God’s stated principle:

· Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. Also, 2 Kings 14:6b, 2 Chron. 25:4b.

· Ezk 18:20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Lastly, let us deal with an objection based on:

· Gen 5:32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

· Gen 7:6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the Earth.

Some critics assumed that since Gen 6:3 is between Gen 5:32 and 7:6, there were only at most one hundred years for God’s Flood warning, not 120 years. However:

· Gen 6:8-9 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Could God have pre-determined to punish mankind in Noah’s 480th year, 20 years before the birth of his sons? The text did not say, but it is a possibility. This is a solution with fewer difficulties, and my position is based on all available biblical data.