There are many people who give me a strange look when I tell them that I am a WHOLE BIBLE CHRISTIAN.  Many of them have heard of “New Testament Christians” or “New Covenant Christians,” but what does it mean to be a “Whole Bible Christian”? Quite simply it means that I am a Christian who believes that all of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is for all people for all time.  Regardless of people’s nationality, ethnicity and race, age, sex, or background, the whole Bible is for them.

Of course, one of the questions that pop up in speaking to people about being a “Whole Bible believer” is, “How do I handle the Old Testament?” For centuries, there’s been a debate in Christendom about how to understand the “Old Testament.”  Some people believe that most of the Old Testament is for today, except for ceremonial laws and rituals; others believe that all of the Old Testament is for today, except for the law; and then there are still others who completely reject all of the Old Testament today.  However, I believe the real problem is in our understanding of what constitutes the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.”

WHAT IS THE “OLD TESTAMENT” & “NEW TESTAMENT”?

The first thing we need to understand is that there’s not “one testament” or “one covenant” in the “Old Testament,” but at least SEVEN (some would argue 8-10, depending on how covenant is defined).  Therefore, the name itself is misleading, since it does not appropriately communicate the reality of what is discussed within its pages.  In saying that, I should also explain that there’s not one biblical verse or passage that defines the “Old Testament” as the first 39 books in the Bible or the “New Testament” as the last 27 books of the Bible.  The designations “Old Testament” for the first major portion of the Bible, and the “New Testament” for the second part of the Bible is completely man-made, it’s not given by God at all.

HOW DID JESUS REFER TO THE “OLD TESTAMENT”?

In fact, at no point in time does Jesus ever refer to the first part of our Bible as the “Old Testament.”  He clearly makes a distinction between oral interpretations that were being taught, such as in the “Sermon on the Mount” (“you have heard…”; Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43) and the written Scriptures themselves.  Jesus NEVER, EVER corrected or changed the Scriptures.  What He corrected and changed were people’s interpretations, but not the Scriptures themselves.

When Jesus refers to the Scriptures, in most cases, He makes it clear that He’s dealing with a WRITTEN text, for example,

• “It is written…” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; 21:13; Luke 4:4, 8, 12; John 6:45)
• “What is written in the law?” (Mark 10:26)
• “Haven’t you read…” (Matthew 19:4)
• “Have you never read…” (Matthew 21:16; Mark 2:25)
• “Did you never read in the Scriptures…” (Matthew 21:42)

He also refers to them by the term “Scriptures”:

• “the Scriptures” (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24; 14:49; John 5:39; 7:38)
• “this Scripture” (Luke 4:21)
• “the Scripture” (John 10:35; 17:12)

Thirdly, He refers to them by the sections that comprise the Scriptures:

• “Did not Moses give you the law?” (John 7:19)
• “the law and the prophets” (Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:16)
• “the prophets and the law” (Matthew 11:13)
• “the law, the prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).

Finally, He referred to them by the name of the one who wrote the words He’s commenting upon:

• Moses (Matthew 19:18; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:3; Luke 20:37; John 5:45-46; 6:32;
  John 7:22-23).
• Isaiah (Matthew 12:14; Mark 7:6)
• David in “the book of the Psalms” (Luke 20:42)

But at no point in time does Jesus ever call it the “Old Testament.”

ABOUT THE TWO MAIN DIVISIONS IN OUR BIBLES

As I mentioned, the designations “Old Testament” for the first major part of our Bible and “New Testament” for the second major portion of our Bible is completely man-made, not a designation from God at all.  So when Paul and the writer of Hebrews uses the term “New Testament” and “Old Testament” or “first covenant,” there’s a huge confusion and/or misunderstanding as to what is being referenced.

THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE TERMS “OLD TESTAMENT” AND “NEW TESTAMENT”

The term “Old Testament” is the English translation of the Greek Palaios Diatheke, which literally can be translated as “the older covenant” or “the older testament,” or the “covenant/testament that’s been around for a long time.”  And the term “New Testament” is the English translation of the Greek Kainos Diatheke, which literally means the “Renewed Covenant/Testament.”

In the Greek language, there are two different Greek words for “new”: neos and kainos.  The way most Christians think and talk about the “New Testament” is if the Greek had been Neos Diatheke, rather than Kainos Diatheke.  Let me explain.  If I go out and buy another car, so that I now have two cars, then I’ve made a numerical change.  I had one car and now I have two cars.  This is Neos.  It speaks of a numerical change, or it can be used to refer to the most recent thing.  On the other hand, if I fix up my car, remodel it and give it a new paint job, and show you what it looks like now, and say, “Hey, what do you think of my new car?”  This is kainos.  This speaks of a QUALITY CHANGE – NOT a NUMERICAL CHANGE.

Consequently, what we have in the “New Covenant” is NOT a whole different covenant, that would be neos, but what we have is the same covenant with improvements; this is kainos.  So when ministers and TV evangelists are preaching, and they say that God has replaced the Old Testament with the New Testament, giving us a whole new Divine program, they are, in fact, giving you a distorted understanding of the New Testament since it’s based on the wrong meaning of “new.”  Rather than “replacing” the “Old Testament,” He deepened it, developed a portion of it, and He modified and improved a few things here and there, but He did not “replace” it.

THE PROPHECY OF THE NEW COVENANT

Now that we understand what the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament” are NOT, let’s look at how Paul uses these two terms in 2 Corinthians 3 to gain a better grasp of these two terms.  In order to understand this chapter, we need to first understand the prophecy of the New Covenant, found in Jeremiah 3!:31-34.

Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, says the LORD.  (Jeremiah 31:31-32)

In this prophecy, God specifically identifies the two groups that God is going to make this “new covenant” with: “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah.”  But who are they?  The “house of Israel” refers to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and “the house of Judah” refers to the Southern Kingdom of Judah.  After Solomon died, his son, Rehoboam, became the king, and the tribe elders came and asked him to lighten the tax load that Solomon heaped on them to pay for all his building projects.  Rehoboam refused, and as a result, the Kingdom split into two parts: the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah).  And we know that Israel violated God’s covenant over and over again.  Let’s continue.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel (the original kingdom now in two parts); after those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jeremiah 31:33)

What is God promising to do?  Is God promising to get rid of His law?  Is He promising that He’s going to accept us, regardless of how we live our lives?  No, not at all.  What He’s promising here is that He’s going to take this “law” that was written on tablets of stone, and He’s going to write it in our “inward parts” and “in our hearts,” and as a result of this, we will now have a new relationship with God: “I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”  Let’s move on to the final verse.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.  (Jeremiah 31:34)

Now as a result of Jesus’s death and resurrection, our sins have been forgiven when we ask God to forgive us of our sins, ask Jesus to be our Lord and Savior, and then repent of our sins, meaning that we turn away from our sinful lifestyle and begin living in obedience to God.  But this verse has not been completely fulfilled yet.  Why?  Because are still needing to tell our neighbor to “Know the LORD.”  Evangelism is still very much needed and required.  This verse will not be fully fulfilled, until evangelism will no longer be necessary, because “they shall all know Me.”

Therefore, we are in an age of transition.  The “Old Testament” is in the process of aging, but the “New Testament” has not been fully realized.

PAUL’S USE OF THE “OLD TESTAMENT” AND “NEW TESTAMENT”

Now that we understand the prophecy of the New Covenant, which functions as one of the main backdrops to this passage, we can now begin to discuss Paul’s use of these two terms: “Old Testament” and “New Testament.” In 2 Corinthians 3:2-3, Paul writes the following:

You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as you are manifestly declared to be he epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in TABLES OF STONE, but in FLESHY TABLES OF THE HEART. (2 Corinthians 3:2-3; Emphasis Mine)

Notice that Paul is contrasting two tables: one “tables of stone” and the other, “fleshy tables of the heart.”  The “tables of stone,” Paul will later identify as the “Old Testament” (2 Corinthians 3:14), and we can see that the “fleshy tables of the heart” is a reference to God’s promise in the new covenant of Jeremiah 31.  Then, three verses later, Paul writes,

[God] also has made us able ministers of the NEW TESTAMENT [covenant]; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the MINISTRATION OF DEATH, WRITTEN AND ENGRAVEN IN STONES, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of countenance; which glory was to be done away.  How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?  For if the MINISTRATION OF CONDEMNATION be glory, [how] much more the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?  (2 Corinthians 3:6-9)

Now let’s examine what Paul is saying about the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament:”

“OLD TESTAMENT”	“NEW TESTAMENT”
“the letter kills” (2 Cor. 3:6)	“the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6)
“the ministration of death” (2 Cor. 3:7)	“the ministration of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:8)
“the ministration of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:9)	“the ministration of righteousness” (2 Cor. 3:9)

To understand the backdrop of this chapter, we need to have read and understand Exodus 20, 24, 32, 34 and Acts 2; these five chapters are needed, along with the Jeremiah passage, to properly understand the point that Paul is making here.

In these two passages, Paul refers to the “Old Testament” as that which had been written on “tables of stone” (3:3) and as “written and engraven in stones” (3:7).  This then identifies the “Old Testament” as the “Ten Commandments.”  These Ten Commandments are the ONLY commandments that were audibly spoken by God for all the nation of Israel and the “mixed multitude” of Gentiles (Exodus 12:38; Numbers 11:4) to hear who were down there at the base of Mt. Sinai.  It is also the ONLY commandments that God personally wrote upon the tablets of stone.  And it is this “covenant” that Paul is contrasting with the New Testament.

This means that the “Old Testament” does not refer to the Five Books of Moses, since these books were not written on “tables of stone.”  Nor does it refer to the whole “Old Testament” since it likewise was not written on “tables of stone.” They were all written on scrolls by different writers.  God expected His people to read and study the scrolls in addition to what was written on the tablets of stone.  The scrolls did not change; they all still need to be read and studied.  What changed was the location of where God was going to write what had been on the “tablets of stone.”

We also need to remember that both the “Old Testament” (the Ten Commandments) and the “New Testament” (the Ten Commandments written on our hearts and mind) were and are written by the Holy Spirit, and the content of both (the Ten Commandments) is the same.   Nowhere does God say that He’s changing the content of the Ten Commandments, but what He changed was where He was going to write it.

A CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP

By writing the Ten Commandments on the inside of us, it would bring about not only a change in our relationship with God but a change with His covenant as well.  When the Ten Commandments were written on the “tablets of stone,” they were located outside of us and, therefore, they were an “outer motivator,” or a “have-to,” but when God wrote them on “the tablets of our hearts and minds,” our relationship to them changed.  They were no longer on the outside of us, they were now on the inside of us.  Therefore, they were no longer an “outer motivator,” but they became an “inner motivator,” and they went from being a “have to” to becoming a “want to.”  It was this system of using the commandments as an “outer motivator” that was “done away” or “replaced,” not the law itself.

But in another New Covenant passage, God not only promises to write His Ten Commandments upon the “tablets of our hearts and minds,” but He says that He would give us His Spirit so that He could empower us to walk out the commandments that God wrote upon our hearts, the Ten Commandments.

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.  And I will put My Spirit within you, and CAUSE you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments, and do them.  And you shall live in the land that I gave to your fathers; and you shall be My people, and I will be your God.  (Ezekiel 36:26-28)

How can the New Testament “annul” or “replace” the law of God when God says that He’s going to write the law – the Ten Commandments – on our hearts and minds, and here that one of the reasons why He’s giving us His Spirit is so that it was “CAUSE” us “to walk in My statutes,” and so we’ll “keep My judgments, and do them.”

THE “MINISTRATION OF DEATH” VS. THE “MINISTRATION OF LIFE”

So again, looking back at the chart I’ve made using the terms Paul uses for the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament,” why does Paul refer to them in this way?

“OLD TESTAMENT”	“NEW TESTAMENT”
“the letter kills” (2 Cor. 3:6)	“the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6)
“the ministration of death” (2 Cor. 3:7)	“the ministration of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:8)
“the ministration of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:9)	“the ministration of righteousness” (2 Cor. 3:9)

Paul is contrasting here the experiences of the two Pentecosts: The first Pentecost where God originally gave the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, and the Pentecost experience we see in Acts 2.  In Israel, Pentecost (Heb. Shavuot; the Feast of Weeks) is when the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai is remembered.  As I said, the Ten Commandments is the only portion of the law that was spoken audibly by God to the entire nation of Israel, it’s the only portion of the law that was written by God Himself, and it’s the only portion of the law that God promises to write on our hearts and minds.  But when Moses brought the Ten Commandments, which had been written on tablets of stone, down the first time, the people were involved in worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 32), and as a result, 3,000 men were killed that day in judgment from God.

God intended His laws to bring blessing and a fulfilling life to His people, but because of the sins that they were flagrantly committing down in the camp, it brought only death to 3,000 instead.  However, if we contrast that with what happens in Acts 2, then what we find are not people pulling away from God and flagrantly sinning, but people of Israel pressing in to God, praying and seeking His face, and as they are all doing this, the Spirit of God comes down, He removes their stony heart, gives them a new heart of flesh, and then writes His law – His Ten Commandments – on their hearts and mind, filling them with His life, His Being, and they then begin to speak in other tongues.

The people hear all of the commotion outside, and Peter then gives his first sermon to explain what was happening.  As a result, 3,000 people are saved, i.e, given “life.”

So the difference between the two has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, since He was involved in both, nor is it due to the words of the Ten Commandments (the law), since the same words are used in both.  But the difference was on what happened when it was first given to the people.  Whether it brought “life” or “death” was dependent on whether the people were living in rebellion against God (Exodus 32) or they were pressing in to know and experience God (Acts 2) – not on the words of the Ten Commandments or the Presence of the Holy Spirit since He’s the writer in both scenarios.

“THE VEIL OVER MOSES’S FACE”

Another part of this passage that gets horribly misrepresented is “the veil over Moses’ face.”  To properly understand this, we need to read the passage of Scripture in Exodus 34 that deals with this topic.  After the golden calf incident, Moses goes up on Mt. Sinai again to get a second set of tablets, because He broke the first set during the incident with the golden calf.  We are told that Moses was on the Mount with God for “forty days and forty nights” and during this time, “he did neither eat bread, nor drink water” (Exodus 34:28).  And it says, “he wrote upon the tables the WORDS OF THE COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS” (Exodus 34:28).  We are specifically told here that the Ten Commandments are, in fact, the “words of the covenant.”

Upon coming down from the Mount, it says that Moses didn’t realize that as a result of him speaking with God, that it had effected the skin of his face: “the skin of his face shone” with the glory of God (Exodus 34:29).  And seeing his face shine like that scared the people:

And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come near him.  (Exodus 34:30)

So what does He do?  He wears a veil while he’s out with the people, but then takes off the veil when he goes back up the Mount to speak with God.

And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in Mount Sinai.  And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.  But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out.  And he came out, and spoke unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.  And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with Him.  (Exodus 34:32-35)

In this passage, why does Moses wear a veil?  It’s to cover his face.  Why?  Because it is shining with the glory (or Presence) of God, and this glory scares them.  Therefore, so the people would not be afraid of God’s glory or Presence, Moses wears the veil when he’s down there with the people, but when he goes back up into the Presence of God, he removes the veil.

Now let’s compare this with what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3.

For if that which is done away [the Ten Commandments as an outer motivator] was glorious, much more that which [continues to] remain is glorious.  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the reading of the OLD TESTAMENT, which veil is done away in Christ.  But even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.  (2 Corinthians 3:111-16)

Moses put the veil on his face, because the people were afraid of the glory of God; they were afraid of the effect of what God’s Presence had on the facial skin of Moses.  Now did the veil have anything to do with Moses’ “plainness of speech”?  Also, Paul says that Moses put “a veil over his face,” so “that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” But according to the Exodus passage, he put the veil on his face because of the fear of the people.  Maybe, what Paul is saying here is that what was abolished was our fear of God and His Presence, NOT His commandments.

Paul says here that “the same veil” is “untaken away in the reading of the OLD TESTAMENT.”   Could the “veil” be seen by Paul as an image representing our fear of God, our fear that if we don’t obey Him we’ll be punished, or our fear of what will happen to us, if we get too close to God?  Or perhaps, could the veil represent whatever  might separate us from the Presence of God (represented by the face of Moses)? But Paul says that “in Christ,” the “veil,” i.e., our fear of God, is done away.  But “even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.”  The fear is still covering their hearts, their fear of getting too close to God, but then he says, “when IT shall turn to the Lord.”  Is the “IT” their heart?  So when we turn our hearts to God, then Paul says, “the veil shall be taken away.”

CONCLUSION

But when we compare this chapter to the material that provides the backdrop for it that Paul assumes we’ve all read and know intimately, we cannot come away from it with the understanding that God has done away with His law.  Such an interpretation is extremely superficial, and only reveals that the person who says this has not spent the time needed in the background material to properly interpret and understand the material.

In the New Testament, the Ten Commandments, the covenant of God, has now been written on the new heart and spirit that God has given to us.  And because His Spirit has also been given to us, not only do we have all we need to walk out the commandments, but now the veil, our fear of God, has been removed, so that we can develop that close, intimate relationship with Him that God has always desired.   So rather than teaching us that the Law of God is not for Christians, this is pointing us in the directly opposite way, to God, His Presence, and His commandments.

 

Return to the top

What does the Bible say about circumcision? In part 1, we examined what the book of Genesis teaches us about it, and discovered that the first half of the book deals with Gentiles (non-Jews), and there were three specific Gentiles (non-Jews), all descendants of Seth, Adam’s third son, who were said to “walk with God,” prophesied, and experienced something miraculous in their life: Enoch, Noah, and Abram.

The second half deals with the descendants of Abraham.  In this part, we noted that Israel came into existence when God renamed Jacob as “Israel,” and that the word “Jew” was not possible, until the birth of Judah, Jacob’s fourth son, since it’s a shortened form that’s derived from his name.  But the term “Jew” did not begin to be in use until the Babylonian exile, when those from the southern kingdom of “Judea” started being called “Jews.”

Finally, we concluded that Genesis taught that one did not need to be circumcised to be a worshiper of God, but it was required to be a part of the Abrahamic covenant, and to be ONE with the family of Israel.  We are now continuing  in our study through the rest of the Pentateuch.

CIRCUMCISION IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS

— Israel’s Relationship with God

The book of Exodus builds upon what we’re taught in the book of Genesis.  There’s a very interesting comment made at the end of Exodus chapter 2:

Now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died.  And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God.  So God heard their groaning; and GOD REMEMBERED HIS COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB.  And God saw the sons of Israel, and God took notice of them.  (Exodus 2:23-25; Emphasis Mine)

In Genesis 15, when God entered into covenant with Abram, He prophesied to him the events of the Exodus, and it was now time for God to make good His promise to bring the people of bondage and to take them to the land He had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.   In other words, the Exodus didn’t just happen, but it was the literal fulfillment of what God verbally promised Abraham in Genesis 15 during his vision.

It should also be noted that there’s no example in the Bible of God beginning a relationship with the use of a covenant.  Instead, our relationship with God begins with Him calling us to repentance, just as He called Abram to public repentance by leaving his old life behind: his country, his family and relatives, and his father’s house, all of which were involved in pagan worship and practices.

Once Abram repents by leaving it all behind, there’s a time when Abram gets to know God more BEFORE he enters into covenant with God in Genesis 15.  One of the purposes of a covenant is to move the relationship to a deeper level,  to intensify and strengthen it.  God does not begin the relationship in Genesis 15, nor in Genesis 17, but He is moving it forward.

And just like God called Abram to repentance by leaving his old life behind, God requires the same of all his seed.  And in the book of Exodus, God calls the children of Israel and the mixed multitude of Gentiles (non-Jews) who joined them to leave their old life in Egypt behind.  There is a leaving that God requires of anyone who desires a relationship with Him.   Therefore, it is critical that we understand that the purpose of circumcision was not to establish the relationship between an individual and God, but it was an outward sign that this individual had been sanctified, or set apart, for God’s use.

For example, in Exodus 4, look what God tells Moses he is to say to Pharaoh:

And the LORD said unto Moses, When you go to return into Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in your hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.  And you shall say unto Pharaoh, Thus says the LORD, ISRAEL IS MY SON, EVEN MY FIRSTBORN: (Exodus 4:21-22)

Notice that God identifies Israel as “My son, even My firstborn.”  Obviously, for God to identify Israel as “My son, even My firstborn,” God must already be in an intimate covenant relationship with Israel.  Many have been erroneously taught that Israel’s relationship with God began at Mt. Sinai, but this statement contradicts this teaching.  Since God and Israel are already in a relationship, even before the ten plagues or the exodus from Egypt, then Israel’s relationship with God couldn’t have possibly begun at Mt. Sinai.

AN AMBIGUOUS PASSAGE

So Moses is to tell Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, ISRAEL IS MY SON, EVEN MY FIRSTBORN“; however, the following verse, verse 23, is rather ambiguous as to who is being addressed.  On the on hand, it seems to be a continuation of what Moses is to tell Pharaoh, but then we get to verse 24, and all of a sudden, verse 23 seems to indicate that God has changed the direction of the conversation, and He is speaking now to Moses:

And I say unto you, Let My son go, that he may serve Me: and if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your son, even your firstborn.  And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. (Exodus 4:23-24)

As we can see, these two verses raise many questions: “Who is the ‘you’ here: Pharaoh or Moses?” “Who is the ‘him’ that the LORD met at the inn: Moses or his son?” “And why does the LORD seek to kill him?”  Then in the next two verses, we read the following:

Then Zipporah [Moses’ wife] took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband are you to me.  So He let him go: then she said, “A bloody husband you are, because of the circumcision. (Exodus 4:25-26)

These two verses also raise questions: “Why did Zipporah circumcise her son?  Why didn’t Moses do it?” It might be that since Zipporah and her family were descendants of Midian, who was the fourth son of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2), that they may have followed the practice of descendants of Ishmael, circumcising their sons at the age of thirteen, rather than at eight days old.  But it’s apparent that Moses did not circumcise his son at the appropriate age.  Also, we’re not sure if Zipporah circumcises her son to save Moses’ life or to save her son’s life.  But this scene seems to suggest that by Moses not circumcising his son, he was keeping him from serving God.   And it seems God was going to kill him for his disobedience.

And of course, this raises an important question, “If by Moses not circumcising his son could keep his son from serving God, then how does that fit in with the example of men from Seth to Abram who ‘walked with God,’ served Him, and were yet uncircumcised?  The Bible does not give us an answer to any of these questions, but the narrative of the Exodus simply continues.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE “UNCIRCUMCISED”?

If the point of being CIRCUMCISED is to be a part of the Abrahamic covenant, to become ONE with the family (now tribes) of Israel, and to be an outward sign that we have been sanctified, or set apart, for God’s use, then what does it mean to have “UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS“?

And Moses spoke before the LORD, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS?  (Exodus 6:12; Emphasis Mine)

And Moses said before the LORD, Behold, I am of UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me? (Exodus 6:30; Emphasis Mine)

Certainly in making these statements, Moses is alluding here that there’s something even deeper about CIRCUMCISION than what we’ve learned so far.  In the Gospels, Jesus teaches us that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34; Luke 6:45); therefore, “UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS” is the result of an “UNCIRCUMCISED HEART.”  And we also see this in a passage in Leviticus:

If they confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against Me, and that also they have walked contrary to Me; and that I also have walked contrary to them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their UNCIRCUMCISED HEARTS be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.  (Leviticus 26:40-42; Emphasis Mine)

Here we can infer that an “UNCIRCUMCISED HEART” is proudful, arrogant, stubborn, unyielding, unrepentant, and disobedient.  Consequently, “UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS” would be those that speak words reflective of these attitudes.  So if “UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS” reflect an “UNCIRCUMCISED HEART,” then why would Moses, who is described in the Bible as the humblest of all men, describe himself as having “UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS” after Israel refused to listen to him?

I think many times we read over the biblical accounts, but we don’t stop to really consider what is being said and why.  And as a result, we end up missing the deeper lesson that God has for us in these accounts.

PASSOVER – THE FULFILLMENT OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

I think it’s wondrous that the event that freed the children of Israel and the mixed multitude from slavery was the Passover.  By having the Passover happen on the same night that Genesis 15 happened, 430 thirty years earlier to the day, God is connecting the two events.

Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.  And it came about at the end of four hundred and thirty years, TO THE VERY DAY, that all of the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.  (Exodus 12:40-41; Emphasis Mine)

Nor is this my interpretation of this statement.  Paul also makes this connection as well in his epistle to the Galatians:

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise..  For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.  (Galatians 3:17-18)

God keeps His promises.  What He promised Abraham, He fulfilled to the very day.  And we are taught in Scripture that Passover is one of the LORD’s feasts (Leviticus 23:2, 4-5), and it is to be observed FOREVER.

And this day shall be to you for a memorial; and you shall keep it A FEAST TO THE LORD throughout your generations; you shall keep it a FEAST by an ordinance FOREVER.  (Exodus 12:14; Emphasis Mine)

Obviously, if it is to be kept as an ordinance FOREVER, then it could not have possibly ended at the cross, as many today teach.

PASSOVER AND CIRCUMCISION

And it is also during His instructions regarding Passover that God again gives instructions regarding circumcision.

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover: There shall no STRANGER [Heb. nekhar] eat thereof: But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when you have CIRCUMCISED him, then shall he eat thereof.  (Exodus 12:43-44; Emphasis Mine)

• Nekhar (Strong’s #5236):  That which is foreign, a foreigner, strange, a stranger.  It is used of a foreign god, of feign altars, a foreign country, and everything foreign.

A FOREIGNER [Heb. toshav] and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.  In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall you break a bone thereof.  All of the congregation of Israel shall keep it. (Exodus 12:45-46; Emphasis Mine)

• Toshav (Strong’s #8453):  A non-native settler, inhabitant, a foreigner, an alien, an emigrant.  Someone who sojourned and inhabited in a foreign country where he was not naturalized.

And when a STRANGER [Heb. ger] shall sojourn with you, and will keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males BE CIRCUMCISED, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no UNCIRCUMCISED person shall eat thereof.  ONE LAW shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the STRANGER [Heb. ger] that sojourns among you.  (Exodus 12:47-49; Emphasis Mine)

• Ger (Strong’s #1616):  It denotes a stranger, foreigner, alien, pilgrim, sojourner, guest, visitor.  The patriarchs were called by this term while they sojourned in the land of Canaan, and the majority of their descendants were called by this term while they were in Egypt (Exodus 23:9).  In fact, Moses named his son Gershom to commemorate his stay in Midian (Exodus 18:3).  This classification meant that one enjoyed certain civil rights but not property rights.  Much of the law of Moses applied to those who preferred to live among the Israelites.

Now in consideration of these three Hebrew terms for non-Jews, I found a couple of things interesting.  (1) The terms Nekhar and Ger are translated by the same term, “STRANGER,” even though they are the furthest apart, and Toshav, which is closer to Ger, is translated as “FOREIGN.”  (2) Regardless of the classification, God makes it clear that an “uncircumcised person [specifically a man, since women did not get circumcised] were not to eat the Passover sacrifice.

DID THE NEED FOR CIRCUMCISION END AT THE CROSS?

The majority of Christians would argue that the law, including the need for circumcision, ended at the cross; however, there’s a problem with that point of view.  And that is, during the Millennial reign of Christ would Jesus is ruling on this planet and the physical presence of God will also be on this planet, dwelling within His Temple, the law, the Temple, the Levitical Priesthood, the animal sacrifices, the feasts, the Sabbath and new moon celebrations will all come back in full force, including the requirement of circumcision.

In fact, God is very specific in Ezekiel 44:9, that no uncircumcised person is allowed in His Temple:

Thus says the LORD God; NO STRANGER, UNCIRCUMCISED IN HEART, NOR UNCIRCUMCISED IN FLESH, shall enter into My sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Now does this mean that Christians will not be in the Millennial Kingdom?  No, we will be there, but it does mean that we have been circumcised, we will not be allowed into the Temple.  We will be able to go as far as the outer courtyard, but no further.  And we will not be able to eat of the Passover sacrifice, unless we have been circumcised.  So ask yourself the question, if all these laws are in full force on earth when God and Jesus are in charge of everything – and everything is being done their way – then does it make any sense at all to say that Jesus died to do away with something that He’s only going to bring back when He returns?  Jesus died to do away with the law of sin, NOT the law of God.

Our problem in Christian church is that we have looked back to the cross (which we should do), but we have failed to look forward to the coming Kingdom Age of the Millennium and to form doctrines that are consistent with these two ends of the spectrum.  And there are many, many Christians who are continuing to do the same thing.  And until we start looking at both ends of the spectrum, we will continue to get it wrong.

CIRCUMCISION IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be CIRCUMCISED.  (Leviticus 12:3; Emphasis Mine)

So again, here in the book of Leviticus, God is just re-affirming the fact that male infants are to be circumcised on the eighth day.  But then, seven chapters later, we are met with another question:  If UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS are words that come from an UNCIRCUMCISED HEART, then what does it mean to have UNCIRCUMCISED FRUIT FROM A TREE?

And when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as UNCIRCUMCISED: three years shall it be as UNCIRCUMCISED unto you: it shall not be eaten of.  (Leviticus 19:23; Emphasis Mine)

Remember to be CIRCUMCISED is an outward sign that has been set aside for God’s use and purpose, so if the FRUIT OF A TREE is UNCIRCUMCISED, then it’s not been set aside by God to be used for His purpose.  And as His people, we, likewise, are only to eat what He has declared to be CLEAN or CIRCUMCISED.  If God does not permit us to eat it, then it is wrong for us to do so.  He is the King; He sets the rules, NOT US.

CIRCUMCISION IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS

Now in the book of Numbers, there’s to be one practice regarding offering, whether they are made by Jews or by a STRANGER (or Ger):

And if a STRANGER [Heb. ger] sojourn with you, or whoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, or a sweet savor unto the LORD; AS YOU DO, SO SHALL HE DO. 

After stating this, God proclaims this legislative policy to reaffirm the equality that’s to exist between the children of Israel and the non-native Gentile (or Ger):

ONE ORDINANCE shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the STRANGER [Heb. ger] that sojourns with you, an ORDINANCE FOREVER in your generations: AS YOU ARE, SO SHALL THE STRANGER [Heb. ger] be before the LORD.  ONE LAW and ONE MANNER shall be for you, and for the STRANGER [Heb. ger] that sojourns with you.  (Numbers 15:14-16; Emphasis Mine)

Just as the Passover laws are to be the same for both the native-born children of Israel and the Ger (“Stranger”; Gentile, non-Jew), so we find the general principle here in regard to the other laws as well.

CIRCUMCISION IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY

Then, finally, in the book of Deuteronomy, we again see the connection being made between CIRCUMCISION OF THE FORESKIN to be an outward sign of the CIRCUMCISION OF ONE’S HEART.

CIRCUMCISE therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.  (Deuteronomy 10:16)

The opposite of having a CIRCUMCISED HEART is to be proudful, arrogant, stubborn, stiff-necked, unyielding, unrepentant, and disobedient.   These are qualities and characteristics that take us away from God, NOT to God.

AN END-TIME PROMISE

Near the end of the book of Deuteronomy, God gives the children of Israel and the mixed multitude of Gentiles with them a promise that God is still working on fulfilling today, but it will reach its complete fulfillment during the Millennium:

That then the LORD your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion upon you, and will return and gather you from ALL THE NATIONS, wherever the LORD your God has scattered you.  If any of yours be driven out unto the THE UTMOST PARTS OF HEAVEN, from there will the LORD your God gather you, and from there will He fetch you: and the LORD your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will do you good, and multiply you above your fathers.  (Deuteronomy 30:3-5; Emphasis Mine)

And the LORD your God will CIRCUMCISE YOUR HEART, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and that you may live.  And the LORD your God will put all these curses upon your enemies, and on them that hate you, which persecuted you.  And you shall return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all His commandments which I command you this day.  (Deuteronomy 30:6-8; Emphasis Mine)

CONCLUSION

So in ending our study of CIRCUMCISION within the Pentateuch, we’ve discovered that it involves so much more than simply a surgical procedure.  Men and boys who are CIRCUMCISED are identifying themselves with the Abrahamic Covenant, the family and people of Israel, but they are also identifying that they have been sanctified, or set apart, by God for His use and purpose, and are, therefore, pledging to live with CIRCUMCISED HEARTS AND MINDS (bare, open, soft and pliable) before God all the days of our lives.  To do anything else would be to defile our CIRCUMCISION.  The rest of the Bible may develop these ideas more, expound and elaborate upon them, and perhaps even add to them, but it cannot CONTRADICT them or OPPOSE them.

Now in saying this, some may wonder if I am saying that Paul was in error in his teachings about CIRCUMCISION?  But as you will see, Paul’s position was as a result of things that were going on during the first century, C.E., which had nothing to do with what God taught in His Word here in the Pentateuch.  And because most Christians do not study the Bible as a whole, since many believe that “the law” or the “Old Testament” ended at the cross, or is not to be a part of the Christian experience, they end up with a distorted view of Paul and his writings, as I will show when we get there.

 

Return to the Top

“John, Are we ready to release the new model tomorrow,” Mr. G. was indeed excited about the new computer program he had designed.  It would make all the modern computers look like the old PAC-MAN games in comparison.

“Yes, sir.”  John smiled as he made sure they were ready for mass production tomorrow.

“Good, let’s go home then.  We’ve got a busy day tomorrow.”  Mr. G, John, and the other workers go home for the night.

During the night, though, Mr. S., the owner of one of the competing companies, broke into Mr. G.’s factory.  He found the reproduction model and spent some time altering some of the basic hardware in the board.  “By the time they figure out what happened, they will have so many recalls, it will take them years to fix.”  After making several slight alterations, he was able to sneak out without being detected.

The next day, Mr. G. and his crew began mass production of their new computer, and as Mr. S. predicted, it was about a month or so into production when they started getting the first complaints.  Looking into the original model, the technicians found what someone had done.  “Sir,” they asked, “should we recall all of the new computers?”

“Let’s notify the public about the recall, and then as each computer comes in, we can begin the process of fixing it,” Mr. G. saddened by what one of his competitors had done to damage his new computer system.

GOD’S ORIGINAL DESIGN

In much the same way, God’s original design, Adam and Eve, was the grandest of all His creations.  He had made them “in His image and likeness” (Genesis 1:26-27).  He was excited at the prospect of them reproducing and filling the earth with descendants who would also be in God’s “image and likeness.”

God had designed this beautiful planet for them to love on, wondrous animal and plant life for them to enjoy, and everything was at peace.  There were no sickness, disease, killing or death.  It was a place that left one in awe of the God who created and designed all of its most intricate features.  He told them they could enjoy all that was there in the Garden; however, there was only one rule:  They could not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of the Garden.  All the other fruit trees and food growing in the Garden, they could eat, just not that one tree.  If they ate from it, God warned, they would die.

SPIRITUAL ESPIONAGE

But like in the parable, the serpent came into the garden and committed “spiritual espionage,” by bringing about a “hardware” defect in the original man and woman.  By getting the man and woman to begin to question their Creator and Manufacturer, they planted a seed for a defect that was formed when they broke the one and only rule of this wonderful Garden.   The serpent had succeeded in bringing about an alteration in their basic programming, creating what I call, “An Inversion Program.” The alteration, though, is not in the “software” of their design (their learning and experiences) but in their very “hardware” (a level deeper than even their DNA).  This alteration changes the desired outcome from the couple reflecting God to reflecting a distorted “Fun House” image of God.

THE IMMEDIATE RESULTS

The immediate result was that they were “disconnected” from the Creator.  He was their spiritual life force, and without Him, they died spiritually.  The Creator realized that His perfect design had been altered and changed.  As a result, it was necessary to drive the original couple out of His perfect Garden since there was another tree, “The Tree of Life,” that had fruit that, if they ate it, they would’ve lived forever in their current “disconnected” and altered condition.  This would not be acceptable since they would spend eternity in a progressive state of death, so He drove them out.

Also, each was punished with hard labor.  The man in working the soil to bring forth food, and the woman in working to bring forth children.  In addition, since the man and the woman had died spiritually, they brought into God’s perfect earth sickness, disease, misery, pain, and death.

Also, this “disconnect” from His perfect, holy character led to them reflecting imperfect, unholy traits and qualities, such as lying, coveting, stealing, disobedience, and even murder. And after several millennium, we can now see the results of the disintegration of the Creator’s original designs within humanity to what it is today.

ABOUT THE DESIGN DEFECTS

In the Bible, the “hardware defect” is called “the law of sin” or, sometimes, “sin” for short. It’s a defect in our hardware in that it alters, changes, or completely inverts what God has given to us in its purpose.  For example, He gave us a mouth to speak love, kindness, and blessing, but due to the defect, we use it to speak hatred, anger, cruelty, and cursing.  The complete opposite of what God intended.

The ultimate problem is because God, the Creator, is perfect, and everything where He lives is also “defect free” (there’s no sin) in its own design and purpose; consequently, He cannot allow anyone in where He lives (we call “heaven”) who has these “hardware issues.”  Also, it’s not just an “easy fix,” because depending on the person and their experiences, the “hardware issues” vary, so it’s not the same areas that needs to be “fixed” in each person.

THE FIRST ATTEMPT – A “NO GO.”

God did not just come up with a plan to “correct” the problem; instead, He began working on this issue right away.  However, most people ignored His re-call that there was a problem and that they needed readjustments made to their design.  Instead, it got to the point where if they kept going, they would have completely annihilated one another.  He had no choice but to destroy almost everyone on the planet, and begin again, with one man and his family; he was the only one who had been allowing Him access into his life. His name was Noah.

GOD “CLEANS” THE ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM

God has Noah build an ark large enough to save him, his wife, three sons and their wives, and certain animals.  At that time, the species of each animal was not as diverse as it is today; consequently, the issue was not as problematic as many scientists make it out to be.   Also, all aquatic animals did not need to be placed on the ark, so it was only land animals and birds that needed to be there.

Once the ark was built and Noah, his family and the animals were safely on board, God shut them in, and He then began cleansing the system.  God immersed the entire planet under water by —

• having the subterranean water table break through the ocean floor around the world (evidence of which is still seen on the ocean floor) into the atmosphere;
• the added precipitation resulted in a 40 day and 40 night deluge of rain; and
• added to that, the water canopy that surrounded the planet collapsed in on the planet.  This water canopy protected everything on the earth from the sun’s deadly RV rays, slowing the aging process to the point where people prior to the flood lived up to almost 1,000 years old.  However, after the flood, we see a dramatic 88% drop in human life expectancy, from 1,000 years to 120 years.

With the collapse of the water canopy and the breaking open of the ocean floor, this likewise caused a quick break-up and movement of the continents (evidence of which is still seen on the ocean floor, not the slow movement erroneously taught by most scientists).  Consequently, the world after the flood was, in fact, a very different world than the one Noah and his family, and even the animals, knew before they had entered the ark.

GOD’S “RE-CONNECTION” PROGRAM

The basis of God’s “re-connection program” is much more complex in structure than what is often presented.  First, the foundation of the program had to be established, and then structural elements, as well as other necessary details, before the final stage of the program could be enacted.  The problem with mainstream Christianity’s presentation of this program is that it only pays attention to the final stage and completely disconnects it from the previous required stages that were needed to set up the foundation, framework, and context of this entire program.

Ten generations after the flood, God begins laying the foundation of His new “re-connection program,” called “covenant,” which He made with a man named Abram.  The basic promise of what this program would accomplish can be found in the first book of God’s Kingdom Manual, commonly called “the Bible,” in Genesis 12:1-3.

Now the LORD said to Abram, “Get out of your country, and from your family, and from your father’s house, and into a land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing: And I will bless those who bless you, and curse those that curse you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

The goal of God’s plan was to establish a nation of people in the earth that He might bless, so that they, in turn, might be a blessing to others and, ultimately, become a blessing to the whole world.  And what we see in the Bible, and through history, including today, is God’s continuing struggle, working with people, to bring about this ultimate goal.

THE DIAGRAM OF GOD’S PROGRAM

In Genesis 15, we see the basic diagram of this “re-connection program” called “covenant.”  It was a process already known to Abram, but now, he would be entering into covenant with God.  To do this, God told him to get the following:

a heifer of three years, a she goat of three years, a ram of three years, a turtledove and a young pigeon. (Genesis 15:9)

God then had Abram cut the animals in half lengthwise, except for the two birds.  He then laid the two halves on opposite sides of one another, forming an aisle, called “the walk of death.”  Usually, two people would walk between the halves and then meet in the middle, where they would exchange promises (or vows) and curses of what would happen to the other person, if he were to violate the covenant).

But when it came time for Abram to enter into this covenant with God, he was placed in a deep sleep, and God walked these pieces alone.  By doing so, He was promising not only to keep His covenant with Abram and his seed, but He was also promises to die a physically, painful death, if Abram or any of his seed should sin.

HE BEGINS BUILDING THE PROGRAM

And when was this covenant made?  We are told in Exodus 12:

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even THE SELFSAME DAY it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. (Exodus 12:40-41; Emphasis Mine)

And about fifteen centuries later, Paul writes about this same moment:

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.  He says not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to your seed, which is Christ.  And this I say, that the COVENANT, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, which was FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS AFTER, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but GOD GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE.  (Galatians 3:16-18; Emphasis Mine)

In the Exodus from Egypt, the verbal part of this covenant was fulfilled 430 years later, but on the cross, the nonverbal part of this covenant was fulfilled.  God came down, in the person of Jesus Christ, and He kept His promise to Abram: He died a physically, painful death, and so now the entry requirement to the covenant is no longer based on a vision, but on a historic event: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

By asking God to forgive us of our sins and accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are made part of “the seed of Abraham,” and we become heirs of all that God promised to Abraham and his seed:

And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  (Galatians 3:29)

THE PROGRAM IS READY – WILL YOU ASK FOR GOD’S DOWNLOAD?

Our Creator and Manufacturer, God, has developed a process that will allow Him to “fix” the defects and problems that Mr. S. (“Satan”) has caused within the original “production models.”  He, like Mr. G. in the parable, has also put out a “recall” for every one to come and be “reconnected” to Him.

This “reconnect” involves us “downloading His Spirit into our hearts and lives,” which will restart our own “spirit,” allowing God access to all the various parts of our lives to begin working on the various areas of defect and associated issues and problems. This recall is known as “the Gospel” (or “Good News”).  The Good News is that God has opened the way for everyone to come, “reconnect” with Him, experience real spiritual life and begin the process of having our “hardware defects” corrected.

The first step in this process is accept God’s “download”:  by coming to God, admitting we are a sinner (we’ve violated His instructions in His Manual), asking Him to forgive us of our sins, and then asking Jesus to come into our hearts and be our Lord and Savior, but not to give Him a part of our lives, but all of it over to Him completely, so that He can get into every area of our lives and make all those needed “corrections,” “changes,” “adjustments,” and alterations.”  Will you accept Him?  He’s only waiting on you.  He has all that He needs to begin; He just needs you to open the doorway of your heart.

 

Return to the Top

The Bible warns us against the coming Anti-Christ and the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18).  According to Scripture, those who receive this mark, either in the right hand or the forehead, are forever damned to the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.  There is no possible forgiveness left from God once the mark has been accepted by the individual.  It is tragic that I’ve heard a “free grace pastor” teach his congregation that even if they took the mark, God could still forgive them, even though this is in direct contradiction to the Bible (Revelation 14:9-11).

DECEPTIONS WITHIN THE CHURCH

We are living in a time of DECEPTION, and therefore, the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit must become our only standard of truth.  The Holy Spirit will NEVER violate any part of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, but will remind us of what we have already studied and learned, as well as illuminate and explain connections within the Scriptures.

And as prophesied about the last days,  we are now in that time of strong delusion and deception, even within the Christian faith, as the pastor above illustrates.  Nor is he an isolated case, there are many pastors, ministers, Bible teachers, and TV evangelists who are teaching half-truths, deceptions, and errors from the pulpits in America today.  For example, I was listening to a well-known TV pastor or evangelist, who said in his sermon:

The life and teachings of Jesus were part of the Old Testament, and since we, as Christians, are not under the Old Testament, then we are not under the teachings of Jesus either. All that’s relevant for us, as Christians, today is from the cross on, and that’s all.

And he is not the only one teaching this either.  This is why we need to read and study the Bible for ourselves, so we can see if what we are being taught lines up with the revelation of the WHOLE BIBLE, not just parts here and there.

DECEPTIONS WITHIN SOCIETY

But not only do we need to be wary of what is being taught within the church today, but we also need to be wary of what our society and culture is teaching us today as well.  We’re being taught to see all religions as being equally valid,  that there’s more than just two genders, male and female, that there’s nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, that adultery, homosexuality, incest, and even beastiality can be practiced and one can still be “a Christian.”  I’ve seen people online claiming to be “Christian Witches,” “Christian Wiccans,” and even “Christian Prostitutes,” not to mention that there are gay priests and pastors, and even now a LGBTQ baptismal.  These are all things that God rejects in His Word, the Bible.  Rather than telling these people that they need to repent and turn away from their lives of sin, they’re being embraced into the various ministries and leadership positions of the church.

FIVE ANTI-BIBLICAL AMERICAN VALUES

But not only do we find deceptions being accepted within our churches and society, but there are also anti-biblical attitudes which are also clearly evident within the American society as well.  And these attitudes are held by both those outside and inside of the church.  And the one consistency we see in all of the following five attitudes and beliefs is that they exclude God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.  And it is these attitudes and beliefs which will make the accepting of “the Mark of the Beast” something that people will freely accept; many of them will not have to be forced to accept it at all.

1.  Self-Determination: “This is my life; I’ll live it my way“

This belief asserts that the individual is master over his or her own life, and is, therefore, free to choose how to live that life: what to believe, say, eat, what career to choose, who to sleep with, marry, etc.  This attitude and belief is seen reflected in songs like “I Did It My Way,” or even in TV commercials that encourage people to “Have It Your Way.”  When I was teaching college English, I read many essays, written by students, men and women, who made assertions like this concerning their lives, including students who said they were Christians, but argued, for example, that abortion was a woman’s right because “It’s her body, she can decide what she wants to do with it, and no one else should be able to tell her to do otherwise.”

There are several problems with this position.  First of all, it doesn’t recognize that the “right” that the woman had was having sex with a man.  The pregnancy was the result of that choice.  Consequently,  the option to terminate a pregnancy teaches men and women, that they don’t have to take any responsibility for the choices that they make.

Secondly, the pro-abortion argument is based on the exceptions and rare instances, not the rule.  According to statistics, only 5% of pregnancies are the result of rape, incest, and may endanger the mother’s life.  5%.  So even if we agree that not all women report a rape and we triple the statistic, that would still only be 15%, a far cry from the majority of the cases.  That means that AT LEAST 85% OF ABORTIONS ARE USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL.  At least 85% of abortions could be prevented if the man, woman or both would simply plan ahead and use contraceptions.

A final problem with this attitude and belief is that it is in direct opposition to what is taught by the early Christians and the Scriptures.  For example, one of the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament is called the DIDACHE (pron. “Did-ah-kay“), or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” and its dated between 75 – 150 C.E.  There were Church Fathers who argued that it should be included in the New Testament, since it was written during the same time period as much of the New Testament, or at the latest, fifty years afterwards, but they did not win out.  In Didache 2:1-2, it says,

The second commandment of the teaching is: “You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery”; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; “you shall not steal;” you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; YOU SHALL NOT ABORT A CHILD OR COMMIT INFANTICIDE.  “You shall not covet your neighbor”s possession.”

The “corruption of boys” being done by many Catholic priests is a clear violation with this teaching as well, as all as we can see, and men and women being “sexually promiscuous,” and abortion and infanticide.  These are NOT new beliefs of the Christian faith, but they date all the way back to the time period of the Apostles themselves.

Also, the Bible teaches us that we no longer own our bodies, because God “purchased” us by Jesus’ death.  The Bible teaches that when we give our lives to God and make Jesus the Lord of our lives, we are making Him our “Master” or “Owner.”  This is what the word “Lord” means, “Master, Owner.”  The word “redeemed” means to be “bought” or “purchased,” and Jesus redeemed us with His own blood, which He shed for us on the cross.  So how can we say, “It’s my body; I’ll do what I want”?  If that’s the case, then did you take your life back from Christ?

Biblically, if you are a Christian, then you may be the steward or manager of your life and body, but you are NOT the owner, Christ is.  So biblically speaking, what right do you have to end a life in a body that doesn’t even belong to you, since you are no longer the owner of that body?  This is why Paul writes in Galatians 2:20,

I AM CRUCIFIED with Christ; nevertheless, I live, yet NOT I, but CHRIST LIVES IN ME, and the life which I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loves me and gave His life for me.

Notice that we are “crucified with Christ,” and that it is no longer we who live, but it is Christ who lives in us now.  Our bodies are the Temple of God.  It belongs to Him, not to us, so what right do we have to tell God what we are going to do with what belongs to Him?  On the other hand, if you’ve taken your life back from Him, then yes, you have the right to do with it as you will.  But if you have ownership, just understand, that means that God doesn’t.

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that YOU ARE NOT YOUR OWN?  FOR YOU HAVE BEEN BOUGHT WITH A PRICE; therefore glorify God in your body. (I Corinthians 6:19-20; emphasis mine)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, EVEN DENYING THE MASTER WHO BOUGHT THEM, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.  And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned. (2 Peter 2:1-2; emphasis mine)

Worthy are You [Jesus/Yeshua] to take the book, and to break its seals; for You were slain, and DID PURCHASE FOR GOD WITH YOUR BLOOD Men [and women] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (Revelation 5:9; emphasis mine)

We can see this same attitude over and over again throughout Scripture.   For example, we see this attitude in the young Jewish virgin girl, name Mary (Heb. Mir’yam), Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) mother, when visited by the angel Gabriel.  After receiving the news that she was going to conceive and give birth to a son, and she was to name Him “Jesus” (Heb. Yeshua) and further prophecies regarding His coming rule and reign upon the earth, she responded by saying,

Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word. (Luke 1:38)

The term “bondslave” here in the New American Standard Bible is translated in the King James Version as “handmaiden,” but the Greek word here, doulos, means “slave.”  In John MacArthur’s book Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity In Christ, he notes the following:

Whenever it [the Greek word doulos] is used, both in the New Testament and in secular Greek literature, it always and only means slave. (16)

Interestingly, he also notes that the word “slave” (Gk. doulos) “appears 124 times in the original [Greek] text” (15).  But “in almost every English version – going back to both the King James Version and the Geneva Bible that predated it,” the word “slave” has been translated as “servant” due to “the stigmas attached to slavery in Western society” (17).  So in Mary’s response, she is acknowledging God as her “Master,” and she is agreeing to do what He has said.

Slavery in ancient Israel and in the first century, C.E., though, was not like it was in America.  In fact, if the Colonists had actually followed the Bible, there never would have been slavery in the United States.  Biblical slavery was designed so people could pay off their debts.  They didn’t have welfare or food stamps back then.  So, for example,  Jacob wanted Rachel to be his wife, but he did not have the money to pay for the dowry, so he indentured himself (or became Laban’s slave) for a period of 7 years, so that he could work to pay off the price of the dowry.   This is how it worked in the ancient world.  Both sides agreed to the terms, and once the debt (or amount) had been paid and the terms satisfied, then the individual was allowed to go free.  America, though, violated this model over and over again.

On the other hand, there were slaves who were treated and cared for better being someone’s slave than they would be as a “free man.”  So in response, the person would choose to be that person’s slave for life.  This is what was known as a “bondslave.”  How one became a “bondslave” is described in Exodus 21:5-6,

And if the servant [slave] shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.  Then his master shall bring him unto the judges, he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

So in the ancient world, the wearing of an ear-ring identified one as a “bondslave.” Even the word “Lord,” I discovered has “slave connotations.”  Like most people today, I have used the word “Lord” in reference to Messiah [Christ] the majority of my life, but I used it just thinking that it meant “God.”  I used it that way because I heard other people use it and how they used it.  But as I said, the word “Lord” actually means “Master” or “Owner.”

God is called “Lord,” because He created all things; therefore, He owns everything that He created.  Just like any artist today, if they create something, they own what they created.   But man and woman sinned, and by so doing, they rejected Him and His claim of ownership.  And when they did this, they did not gain the freedom that they believed they would, but they were enslaved instead to sin and to the kingdom of darkness.

This is why Messiah (Christ) came to die for us, so He could free us from sin, and bring us back into fellowship with God and to be a part of His kingdom.  By His suffering and death on the cross,  Messiah (Christ) redeemed or “purchased us” for Himself.  So when we acknowledge what Messiah has done and we give our lives to Him, and we accept Him as our “Lord” and “Savior,” we are giving Him the “ownership rights” to our lives; and therefore,  we do not belong to ourselves.  We now belong to God.  He now becomes the rightful Owner and Master of our lives, not us.  Consequently, to say “This is My life, and I will do what I want with it” is a clear denial and recognition of God’s right of ownership.  It is a belief or attitude that’s clearly represented by the Mark of the Beast.

2.  Self-Sufficiency & Independence: The belief that I am to be self-sufficient and take care of myself.

This is also a belief that runs contrary to Scripture, because it excludes God and His Son, the Messiah Jesus (Heb. Yeshua).  It is the belief that “I don’t need anyone else to help me, I can do it myself.” In America, this belief is looked upon as an ideal, something to strive for.  We in America have been taught by our society and culture that this is what it means to be an adult.  However, when we look to Messiah (Christ) as our model, we find a very different ideal. Jesus (Yeshua) never went about doing His own will, but the will of His Father (God):

I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.  (John 5:30)

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me (John 6:38).

For example, Jesus (Yeshua) sought only to do the Father’s will, not His own, in regard to what He said and taught, His doctrine, which was given to Him by the Father:

My doctrine is not Mine, but His [God’s] that sent Me.  (John 7:16)

For I have not spoken of Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.  And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak.  (John 12:49-50)

If a man love Me [Jesus], he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make our abode with him.  He that loves Me not keeps not My sayings [or teachings]: and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s which sent Me.  (John 14:23-24)

So over and over again, we see in the Gospels that Jesus (Yeshua) lived a life that was completely dependent upon God in every way: what He said and what He did.  And sometimes this was a struggle for Him.  This is most clearly evident in His prayer while in the Garden of Gethsemane:

Father, if You be willing, remove this cup [His upcoming passion] from Me; nevertheless NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS BE DONE.   And there appeared an angel to Him from heaven, strengthening Him.  And being in agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.  (Luke 22:42-44; Emphasis Mine)

Even though Jesus (Yeshua) suffered great agony here in the Garden, He still submitted Himself to the will of the Father.  Paul highlights this in his epistle to the church at Philippi:

HE [Jesus/Yeshua] HUMBLED HIMSELF, and BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH,  EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS.  Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus [Yeshua] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [Heb. Yeshua HaMoshiakh] is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  (Philippians 2:8-11; Emphasis Mine)

Jesus (Yeshua) lived His life totally dependent and obedient to God in all things, and as a result, God rewarded Him by elevating Him to the second highest position of authority in all of creation.  Although as God, Jesus already had this position, but as a human being, He did not.  It had to be given to Him.  Only God the Father is higher in authority than He is now.  Consequently, Jesus (Yeshua) is our role model on how we are to live our lives.  We must ask ourselves each day: Are we seeking to be dependent upon God?  Are we obeying God in all things?  Do we seek His will in all that He taught from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21?  Or are we seeking to do our will instead?  Who do we see on the throne of our lives whenever we need to make a decision?

3.  Self-Dependence: The belief that we can fix whatever problems arise ourselves.

Again, when we seek to fix our own problems, instead of looking to God and the leading of His Spirit, we are leaving Him out of our lives, and by so doing, we are embracing the attitudes and beliefs of the Beast.  Am I saying that it is wrong to fix problems that arise?  No, I am saying that it is wrong when we try to do it on our own and leave God and Jesus (Yeshua) out of it.  We must learn to work WITH the Lord to get things done, not APART from Him.  You may think your way will work best, but He may have a much better way, if we would only listen to Him.

4.  Compassionate Diplomacy: The belief that through diplomacy and compassion we can solve any conflict peacefully, whether at the local, national, and international levels.

Again, am I saying that diplomacy is wrong?  No, but even in diplomacy, we should seek the mind and will of God in the matter.  God has insights into situations that we just do not have.  He does not just look on the surface of the situation like we do; instead, He can see into the very hearts and thoughts of all those involved.  He can also see the past, the present, and the future all at the same time, we cannot.   Therefore, it is to our benefit to seek His wisdom and counsel in any matter.

5.  Trust in Human Potential: The belief that with the right time and technology, we can make this into a better world.

This is a belief held by many, and although science has discovered and invented many wonderful things, God is the one who gave us the capability to make such discoveries and inventions.  But He also gave us a free will, so we may choose what to do with that capability, either to use it to do good or to do evil.  Science has been used to do good, such as to create medicines to heal, but it has also been used to do evil, such as create weapons of mass destruction, like chemical weapons or the atomic bomb.

Why are these the attitudes that make one susceptible to receiving the “Mark of the Beast”?  Because God and Jesus (Yeshua) are not a part of any of them; it is the attitude that people can face issues, problems, and fix their own lives without God and His Son, and this is evident in the number 666.  Because man was created on the 6th day, the number 6 represents man.  Notice here we have the first 6 (man) being brought together with the last 6 (man) through the efforts of the middle 6 (man): man being reconciled with man through man.  There’s no God, no Jesus, no Gospel, no new birth.  Everything is done by human effort and human effort alone.

Therefore, in contrast to the various Christian movies that deal with the end days, such as the Thief in the Night series and Left Behind series, I do not believe that people will be forced to receive the Mark of the Beast; instead, I can see many people receiving it because it will already fit into their own American beliefs and values.  For many people today, God is an aspect of their life, something they do on Sundays, but He is not the center of their life.  And there are many people today who believe that Jesus is “a way” to God, but He’s not the only way.  Therefore, opening the door to the receiving of the Mark.

Therefore, only those who have Jesus and the Bible as the center of their lives will not be deceived, but will see through the deception and will not take the Mark.  It is my prayer that your eyes will likewise be open, and that you will also see the dangerous position we are in as a nation, as we continue to go step-by-step towards the embracing of the kingdom of the Anti-Christ.

 

Return to the top

If a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, what about when the Bible is being divided against itself?  Will it stand?  There’s more and more ministers, Bible teachers and evangelists who are teaching that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament.  But does the Bible really present two separate revelations, or is it that Christians don’t understand how the New Testament is really still part of the Old Testament?

THE BIBLE – ONE OR TWO REVELATIONS?

The argument that the Bible contains two separate revelations from God has been a part of Christianity almost since its very beginning.  The seed for the Two-Revelation argument was planted when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple in 70 C.E. The Christians (Gentile or non-Jewish branch of the early church) interpreted this as God turning His back on Israel and the Jewish people, including the Jewish disciples of Jesus, who were called “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), or who identified themselves as “The Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9; 24:14).

As time went on, more and more Christians began to identify themselves as “the New Israel,” “the New People of God,” and to reinforce this idea, they also taught that “the New Testament” (representing the church) had replaced “the Old Testament” (representing Israel). This belief system became known as “Supersessionism” or “Replacement Theology.”  This doctrine of “Supersessionism” still continues in some branches and expressions of Christianity; however, there are many Protestant denominations who have rejected the idea that the Church has replaced Israel, but most of them still retain the idea that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament.

OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT – NOT THE BIBLICAL BOOKS?

There’s a wide misconception within the church about what constitutes the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.”  This misconception is the result, I believe, in the same two names being given by men to the two main portions of the Bible.  God never gave these two titles to the books within His Scriptures.  For example, neither God nor any biblical writer ever uses the term “Old Testament” to refer to the first thirty-nine books of the Bible, nor do they ever use the term “New Testament” to refer to the last twenty-seven books of the Bible.  But in the church today, it’s important that we understand this, because there are ministers, Bible teachers and evangelists who are using this misunderstanding to exclude more and more of our Bible from us.

For instance, less than ten years ago, I was listening to a well-known TV pastor and evangelist, and I just could not believe what he told his congregation and TV audience in his sermon:

The life and teachings of Jesus were part of the Old Testament, and since we, as Christians, are not under the Old Testament, then we are not under the teachings of Jesus either. All that’s relevant for us, as Christians, today is from the cross on, and that’s all.

The scary thing to me is that he is not the only one teaching this.  I have found this same idea being taught by more and more ministers, Bible teachers and evangelists.  But can you imagine the audacity of any minister saying that the Lord’s life and teachings were not for Christians?  This means “the Beatitudes,” “the Lord’s Prayer,” the parables of “the Good Samaritan,” “the Prodigal Son,” as well as His standards for discipleship, among all His other teachings are not for Christians today.

And not only is he teaching that we are not under Jesus’ life and ministry, but he doesn’t even realize that the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” do not refer to the books within our Bibles.  How can he accurately teach his congregation the Bible when he apparently doesn’t even understand something as basic as this?

And what’s even more frightening is that I’ve heard ministers and Bible teachers claiming that the book of Acts is “a transitional book,” meaning that God’s focus and teachings, they say, transition away from the people of Israel (first part of the book) to the Gentile (non-Jewish) world (second part of the book).   And when you compare this teaching to the previous one, then it seems logical to conclude that they are both attempting to justify the elimination of even more Scripture from us as Christians: first, the Old Testament; then, the life and teachings of Jesus, and more recently, the first part of the book of Acts.   As a result, my question is, “What other portions of the New Testament will they eliminate next?”

WHAT IS THE “OLD TESTAMENT”?

So let’s unravel this theological mess.  But before we can correctly understand what the Bible means by the “New Testament,” we must first accurately understand the “Old Testament.”  This phrase, “Old Testament” [Gk. palais diatheke] is only found in one verse in the whole Bible: 2 Corinthians 3:14.  It’s not found anywhere else.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the reading of the OLD TESTAMENT; which veil is done away in Christ.

If we place this verse back into context of the chapter, then what we see Paul contrasting are the writing of God’s law “on the tables of stone” and His law “written in our hearts.”  In all the Bible, there’s only one law that’s been written on “tables of stone”: the Ten Commandments.

You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men; forasmuch as you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God NOT IN TABLES OF STONES, but IN THE FLESHY TABLES OF THE HEART.  (2 Corinthians 3:2-3; Emphasis Mine)

But if the ministration of death, WRITTEN AND ENGRAVEN IN STONES, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?  (2 Corinthians 3:7-8; Emphasis Mine)

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished; but their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the reading of the OLD TESTAMENT; which veil is done away in Christ.  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. (2 Corinthians 3:13-15; Emphasis Mine)

Clearly, then, the phrase “OLD TESTAMENT” refers to the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and not to anything else in the “Old Testament” Scriptures.   And when we look at the five books of Moses, there are narratives, genealogies, and also commandments, statutes, testimonies, and judgments.  But the Ten Commandments are what is referred to as “the words of the covenant”:

And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water.  And he wrote upon the tables THE WORDS OF THE COVENANT, the TEN COMMANDMENTS. (Exodus 34:28; Emphasis Mine)

And He declared unto you His COVENANT, which He commanded you to perform, even TEN COMMANDMENTS; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Deuteronomy 4:13; Emphasis Mine)

And the LORD delivered to me TWO TABLES OF STONE written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spoke with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.  And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the TWO TABLES OF STONE, even the TABLES OF THE COVENANT. (Deuteronomy 9:10-11; Emphasis Mine)

So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT were in my two hands. (Deuteronomy 9:15; Emphasis Mine)

Consider these unique features of the TEN COMMANDMENTS:

• They were the only commandments spoken audibly by God to the nation of Israel as a whole;
• After God audibly gives the Ten Commandments to His people, Moses goes up the Mt. Sinai, where God adds to the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:22-23:33, where Moses then writes everything down, Exodus 20:1 – 23:33 down in a book.  He then reads the book to the nation of Israel, and Moses calls it “the book of the covenant” (Exodus 24:7);
• The children of Israel offer burnt offerings and peace offerings of oxen.  Moses takes half the blood and puts in on the altar, and then the other half, he places it in basins, and Moses takes the blood and he sprinkles it on the people, saying, “Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you” (Exodus 24:8);
• Afterwards, Moses, Aaron, Nadag, Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel had a covenant meal with God, in which all of them saw God (Exodus 24:9-11); and
• They were the only commandments that were written by the finger of God on two tablets of stone.

This only happened once in all of the Exodus and wilderness wanderings.  It did not happen with any of the other instructions, commandments and laws that God gave to Moses, making this portion of Scripture in all of the Bible unique since God has never again spoken His Word audibly for an entire nation of people to hear at once.

And that the “OLD TESTAMENT” [GK.  palais diatheke] is the TEN COMMANDMENTS is reinforced even more when we go back and look at the event in Exodus 34 that Paul is alluding to in 2 Corinthians 3:

And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not the skin on his face shone while he talked with Him.  And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.  And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation return to him: and Moses talked with them.  And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.

And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.  But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out.  And he came out, and spoke unto the children of Israel that which He commanded.  And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.  (Exodus 34:29-35)

What does Paul mean when he writes, “for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the reading of the OLD TESTAMENT [the TEN COMMANDMENTS]; which veil is done away in Christ.  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart” (2 Corinthians 3:14-15)?  What is “the veil”?  The veil was worn because the people were afraid of the Presence of God on Moses’ face, which came from his times of interactions with God.

So when he says that this “same veil remains untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament” is he saying that they are still afraid of the Presence of God?  Is he saying that his people, the Jews, are still using Moses as a mediator between them and God?  He then says that this “veil is done away in Christ”?  Is this because when they accept Jesus (Heb. Yeshua) as Lord and Savior, the Presence of God comes to live within them?  Is this what he is saying?  But then he concludes by saying that “even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart”?  Is this in reference to all of the five books of Moses, or is this still in reference to only the Ten Commandments?

As you can see, when we start comparing Exodus 34 and 2 Corinthians 3, there are many questions that we can ask and wonder about.  I really don’t think that the point that Paul is making with the veil is as clear as it could’ve been.  It still leaves a lot of questions.

Also, in this chapter,  Paul sees the “Ten Commandments” as “the ministration of death,” because when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the two tablets, the people were worshiping the golden calf, and as a result, three thousand people were killed (Exodus 32:26-28).

SO WHAT IS THE “NEW TESTAMENT”?

So if the “OLD TESTAMENT” is the “TEN COMMANDMENTS” written on “TABLES OF STONE,” then what is the “NEW TESTAMENT“?  If we look at 2 Corinthians 3 again, the “NEW TESTAMENT” is the same “TEN COMMANDMENTS” written on the tables of our hearts by the Spirit of the living God.

You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men; forasmuch as you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God NOT IN TABLES OF STONES, but IN THE FLESHY TABLES OF THE HEART.  (2 Corinthians 2:2-3; Emphasis Mine)

But in Paul’s epistle, the “NEW TESTAMENT” – the writing of the TEN COMMANDMENTS upon our hearts by the Spirit is what gives us life.

…but our sufficiency is of God; who also has made us able ministers of the NEW TESTAMENT; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter kills (3,000 died at the base of Mt. Sinai), but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)

On the day of Pentecost, the same feast in which the Ten Commandments were originally given, Jesus’ disciples were in the Upper Room, all in one accord, when the Holy Spirit fell on them as “tongues of fire,” and they began to speak in tongues as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.  And at the end of Peter’s Sermon that followed, 3,000 people were saved or “made alive.”  Therefore, as Paul says, the Spirit gives life.

Therefore, the “OLD COVENANT,” the Ten Commandments written in tables of stone brought death; whereas the “NEW COVENANT,” the Ten Commandments written upon the heart by the Spirit of God brought life.

In the OLD COVENANT, the Ten Commandments written on tables of stone were an external motivator and, therefore, a “HAVE TO,” but the NEW COVENANT, the Ten Commandments written on the heart becomes an inner motivator and, therefore, a “WANT TO.”

And it is this system of using the Ten Commandments as an external motivator, a “Have To,” that has been done away with in Messiah, because once the Holy Spirit writes the Ten Commandments upon our hearts, then it becomes an inner motivator, a “Want To.”  The old system has been done away, and this new system of having the covenant, “the Ten Commandments,” written on our hearts has come.

So did the “New Testament” replace the “Old Testament”?  Yes, but not in the sense that most Christians believe that it has.

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?

The five scrolls of Moses, as well as the rest of the scrolls that made up the Hebrew Scriptures,  were learned the same way they are today: by us reading and studying them.  These scrolls were never written on tablets of stone, so therefore, they are not written upon our heart when we get saved.  Instead, we have to read and study God’s word, and as we “meditate” upon it, rehearse it over and over again within our minds, then its written on our hearts and minds, and we experience the transforming power of God’s word:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  And BE NOT CONFORMED to this world; but BE TRANSFORMED by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.  (Romans 12:1-2; Emphasis Mine)

 

Return to the Top     

How is it that one genealogy has provoked over 1,900 years of discussion?  And yet Matthew began his gospel with an intended purpose: to not only defend Mary’s character and honor, but to set the record straight regarding the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ conception and birth.  Why was this necessary?  Because there were many rumors and “stories” circulating on what people thought happened.  And even today, when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, there are rumors and “stories” about what had happened.

A HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY

Now before getting into the evidence, there’s been a long-standing argument between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity.  The Western Branch, comprised of Roman Catholics and Protestant denominations, have traditionally argued that the New Testament was originally written in Greek; however, the Eastern Branch, comprised of the various Orthodox denominations (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc.), have traditionally argued that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic.  And both sides claim to have the original New Testament – the West with the Greek New Testament and the East with the Aramaic New Testament, called the Peshitta, and both sides having evidence to support their position.  And as I will show, this controversy is an important foundation in exploring the evidence.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

However, when we look at the history and writings of the early Church Fathers, we discover that the testimony of FOUR of them is that the gospel of Matthew was, in fact, written in Hebrew and then later translated into Greek.  In Eusebius’ history, he quotes the writings of all four of them –

PAPIAS (60-163 C.E.)
Of Matthew he had stated as follows: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able.” (Book 3, Chapter 39:16, page 106)

IRENAEUS (130-202 C.E.)
Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect.  (Book 5, Chapter 8:2, page 164)

CLEMENT (150-215 C.E.)
Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. (Book 3, Chapter 24:6, page 89)

 ORIGEN (184-253 C.E.)
The first [gospel] us written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.  (Book 6, Chapter 25:4, page 215)

Also, Irenaeus (130-202 C.E.) wrote in his writing Against Heresies,

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Book 3, Chapter 1:1).

But in spite of the clear testimony of these early Church Fathers, going back to Papias, who was a disciple of the Apostle John and lived about the time the synoptic gospels are believed to have been written, the dominant opinion of those in the Western branch of Christianity is that the Gospels, including Matthew, was originally written in Greek.

However, Papias would’ve known about the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, because according to Eusebius, the Apostle John himself had read all three of these gospels and had given “his testimony to their truth,” but there were things which he said they had left out “of the things done by Christ among the first of his deeds and at the commencement of the gospel” (Book 3, Chapter 24:7, page 89), so he sought to “fill in the missing materials,” which is why John’s Gospel is different than the other three.

However, since Papias was alive during John’s time and his disciple, then he would’ve known of Matthew’s work as well, in both of the Hebrew and the Greek.  Consequently, it should be noted that the early date of 58-68 C.E. for Matthew’s Gospel is for the Greek version, which means the Hebrew original, if we accept the testimony of Papias, as well as the other early church fathers, would’ve been written years earlier.

ANOTHER CONTROVERSY – THE DATING OF MATTHEW

Although Christian scholars give the Gospel writings a much earlier date of when they were written, for example, Matthew (58-68 C.E.), Mark (67-68 C.E.), and Luke (58-60 C.E.), many modern scholars date Matthew much later (around 90 C.E.), since they believe the Gospel of Matthew had to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem since in Matthew’s gospel Jesus prophecies of its destruction.  Obviously, since they do not believe in a God who objectively exists and has revealed Himself to us through His Word, and then in His Son, so then in their mind, since Jerusalem’s destruction was prophesied by Jesus, then they believe it had to have been written after the event had happened.

TWO ISSUES WITH THE GENEALOGY

Now that we’ve discussed some of the historical controversies with the book as a whole, there’s two historical controversies that deal specifically with Matthew’s genealogy.  First of all, it doesn’t match the genealogy with Luke’s (Luke 3: 23-38) and yet, in the Greek versions, both are said to belong to Joseph.  How can Joseph have two very different genealogies?  This discussion has been going on  since at least the early second century, C.E.

Another issue is the contradiction between the number of generations Matthew claims to be in the genealogy and what is given there in the Greek and English versions.  In Matthew 1:17, he writes,

So all the generations from Abraham to David are FOURTEEN generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are FOURTEEN generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are FOURTEEN generations. [Emphasis Mine]

But if we go through and count the generations, the numbers are correct, except for the generations from Babylon until Christ (Matthew 1:12-16):

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Now if you count the generations here (not counting Jechoniah since he’s mentioned in the previous verse), then we end up with only 13 generations, not 14, as Matthew stated; however, my argument for why this is Mary’s genealogy, not Joseph’s, will correct both  discrepancies regarding this genealogy.

WHY DID MATTHEW BEGIN HIS GOSPEL WITH A GENEALOGY?

Now that we’ve looked at all the foundational historical controversies, let’s ask the important question: Why did Matthew begin his gospel with a genealogy?  I believe that one of the main reasons for this and with the account of Jesus’ conception and birth was to defend the character of Mary (as I will show), as well as set the account straight as to the events of the immaculate conception and Virgin birth.

MARY’S GALILEAN BACKGROUND

First of all, in looking at the character of Mary, we have to consider her Galilean upbringing in the 1st century, C.E.  The Galilee was a well-known “hotbed” of Zealot activity.  The Zealots were political activists that fought against Roman oppression and desired a “free Israel.”  In fact, there are numerous accounts of local Zealots, many of whom may have been family and friends of Mary and her family dying in battle or being crucified by Romans.  If anything, as I will show, Mary was an Orthodox Jewish woman, but the heart of a Zealot burned within her.  She was “a true daughter of David,” who was much more politically-oriented than Joseph.

THE NAMING OF MARY’S CHILDREN

One reason I believe that Mary was much more politically oriented than Joseph was the names chosen for her children.  Although two of them were named after the patriarchs, Jacob (“James” in the Greek) and Joseph (or “Joses” in the Greek), three of them were named after military war heroes: Joshua, Judah and Simon.

Joshua (or “Jesus” in the Greek), was not only the successor of Moses, but he was the greatest military leader Israel had up through the first century, C.E.   And considering he was conceived during Hanukkah (according to research), the celebration of a war victory against the Seleucid-Greek military, it’s no wonder why people had such military expectations of Him.  I believe He will, indeed, fulfill those military expectations in His Second Coming and during His Millennial reign.

Her other two sons, Judah and Simon, also were well renowned war heroes from the the war against the Seleucid-Greeks.  This war was held up as the ideal among the Zealots, who many of them lived and fought there in the Galilee against their Roman oppressors, just as Judah Maccabees and his brothers did against the Seleucid Greeks of their day.  And since Mary grew up in the Galilee, we can see from the naming of the children that her heart was very much like other Galileans of her time: one that desired freedom from their Roman oppressors.  And therefore, when the angel Gabriel came to her during Hanukkah to tell her about Jesus, I’m sure she probably saw this as an opportunity to contribute largely to the war effort and the freedom of her people.

TESTIMONY OF THE VILLAGERS

And I’m sure that when Mary ended up pregnant, there were many speculations about the identity of the father.   Some might think that they would suspect Joseph of not waiting the one-year betrothal period, but his reputation was such that he was not even suspected.  Instead, it was Mary was carried the weight and suspicion of wrong doing which is why Matthew begins his gospel the way that he does.  But even though there were “rumors” flying around about Mary, Jesus is still called “the carpenter’s son.” For example, in Matthew 13, when Jesus goes back to Nazareth and teaches in their synagogue, it’s significant what the village people ask:

Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not his mother called Mary?  and his brothers, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not all with us?  Where then has this man all these things? (Matthew 13:55)

There’s no indication here that they suspected any one specific of being Jesus’ biological father, but there’s a hint that they did suspect it to be someone else other than Joseph.  For example, in the Gospel of John, there’s a hinting of an off-cuff remark made to Jesus, which seems out of place:

Jesus says: “You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they say to Him: “We are NOT BORN OF FORNICATION; we have one Father, even God.”  (John 8:41; Emphasis Mine)

This comment seems like a back-handed insult to Jesus, alluding to the stories of His conception.

THE REPUTATION OF JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS

Although there were stories circulated about Mary in quiet whispers, they apparently did not interfere with the reputation of the family overall.  For example, according to historical accounts, James was so ultra-Orthodox in his beliefs, practices and lifestyle, that he was called “the Just” or “the Righteous One,” by both followers of Jesus and non-followers alike, and as a result of his “extremely righteous lifestyle,” he was allowed to do what no other non-Levitical Jew was allowed:

He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary [the Temple]…He was in the habit of entering the temple alone and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel’s, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God.  (Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 23:6, pp. 59-60)

If it was believed that Mary was a known adulteress, as well as a liar, I’m sure this would’ve never been allowed, even with his righteous lifestyle.  But it may have been the result of Joseph and his family living such an ultra-Orthodox Jewish lifestyle, even by the standards of their own day, which we know because Joseph and James are both called “Just” or “Righteous,” that perhaps, their status within the village was respected and this was not discussed, but it didn’t mean that there wasn’t “talk” about how Mary came up suddenly “pregnant” during their one-year betrothal.

However, based on my research, I believe, as I stated earlier, that one major reason for the inclusion of Matthew’s genealogy and the story of Jesus’ conception and birth right at the beginning of his gospel was to address these rumors and stories.  Consequently, once we examine all of the evidence available, it will demonstrate that Matthew was attempting to off-set the rumors in defense of Mary, as well as connect Jesus to the Davidic throne, but at the same time, this evidence also contradicts the traditional view that the Matthew’s genealogy was Joseph’s and the one in Luke 3 was Mary’s.  The evidence for this, I believe,  is the following.

1.  THE GREEK MATTHEW IS A TRANSLATION OF AN EARLIER HEBREW VERSION
   

   The overall evidence strongly supports the view that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is, in fact, a translation from an earlier Hebrew and Aramaic source.   It should be remembered that during their seventy years in Babylon, a lot of Aramaic words were adopted into the Hebrew language.  So actually all of the controversies and problems with the genealogies and the numerical contradiction can all be resolved if ONLY ONE WORD that was mistranslated from the Hebrew-Aramaic into the Greek is corrected.  This one word is found in Matthew 1:16,

   And Jacob begat Joseph the HUSBAND of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.

And within this verse, the problem is the word “HUSBAND.”  You see, in Greek, there’s a clear distinction between the words “father” and “husband,” but this distinction is not clear in Aramaic.

2.  THE ARAMAIC WORD GOWRA

In the Aramaic New Testament, called the Peshitta (pron. “peh-shee-tuh“), the word translated as “husband” is the word gowra (pron. “gow-rah“).  According to several researchers, such as Paul Younan and Andrew Gabriel Roth, both part of the Peshitta translation team, among others online, the word “gowra” can be translated as “man” in the generic sense, or as “husband” or “father” depending upon the context.  For example, in Paul Younan’s article “Use of Orbg in Classical and Contemporary Aramaic Thought,” he writes that in the Aramaic New Testament,

Matthew 1:16 reads, “Jacob fathered Joseph, the hrbg of Maryam.”  The word used here, in verse 16, is Orbg with a 3rd person feminine pronominal possessive suffix or h (i.e., “her gowra“).  [Although] the word has traditionally been translated as “husband,” however, the main Semitic word for “Husband” is f9b (“Ba’la,” or, h19b for “her husband.”)

Examples of the word ba’la can be found in a number of New Testament references, for example: Matthew 1:19; Mark 10:12; Luke 2:36; John 4:16-18; Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:4, 10. 13, 16, 39; Ephesians 5:33; I Timothy 3:2; and Titus 1:6.

But after establishing this dominant pattern within the New Testament, Younan then asks an extremely interesting question: “Why would Matthew use two different terms, in such a short span of writing (3 verses – 1:16 to 1:19), to refer to Maryam’s ‘husband,’ Yoseph?”  And his answer, based on his research and study of the Aramaic, seems equally valid:

The fact is, he had to distinguish between two different people named Joseph – Matthew is not referring to Mary’s husband in verse 16 at all, but rather to her father!

3.  THERE WERE TWO JOSEPHS?

So there were two Josephs?  Actually, in the first century, C.E.,  there were many Josephs since the name “Joseph” was one of the most popular male names of the time, and therefore, the likelihood that Mary’s father and husband shared the same first name is quite feasible.  Younan, in fact, goes on to say that

Depending on context, it has been shown that Orgb [“gawra”] can mean “man, husband or father.”  The usage in verse 16 would demand that we translate Orgb as “father,” rather than “husband,” since the context is a genealogy.  Verses 18 & 19, however, would demand that we associate that Joseph with her “husband,” since the context is that of a marriage.

Those who are continuing to hold to their view that Matthew was originally written in Greek are dismissing this research as “inconclusive.”  They claim that if Mary was the intended focus of his genealogy, he would have done something unique to indicate that, and they claim that he didn’t.  However, I believe they are in error.  Matthew did do something unique, he added the names of four other women.

4.  THE INCLUSION OF THE FOUR WOMEN.

Although the names of women in a genealogy was not at all customary, if we compare Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies, we notice something unusual in Matthew’s that we do not see at all in Luke’s, the names of FOUR WOMEN, all with a questionable past.

THAMAR (Matthew 1:3).  In Genesis 38, Tamar, a Canaanite woman (a Gentile; non-Jew) Judah’s daughter-in-law dressed up as a Canaanite prostitute to attract Judah, her father-in-law, to have sex with her since he would not give her his third son, Shelah, to be her husband, as was custom, since her husband, Er, and his brother, Onan, had both died.

RACHAB (Matthew 1:5).  In Joshua 2, Rahab, a Canaanite woman (Gentile; non-Jewish) Jericho inn keeper and prostitute, hid and protected the two Israeli spies from capture by the authorities there, and as a result, she and her whole household were saved and became a part of the people of Israel. (Joshua 2:1-24)

RUTH (the book of Ruth).  Ruth was a Moabitess, a Gentile.  The people of Moab practiced child sacrifice as part of their worship to their god, Molech.  And yet somehow she had married one of Naomi’s sons, who then later died, leaving her a widow.  Ruth returns to the land of Israel with Naomi and cares for her.  Ultimately, she marries Boaz, the son of Salmon and Rahab, herself a Gentile convert.

BATHSHEBA, “The Wife of Uriah” (Matthew 1:6).  Although her name is not mentioned, Matthew does allude to her as “the wife of Uriah.”  David had committed adultery with her, and then when she ended up pregnant, he tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba to cover up what he had done.  When that didn’t work, he sent Uriah to the front of the battle to have him killed, and then he marries her.  Although their child dies as part of God’s judgment, she does become the mother of Solomon, who would succeed David on the throne.

When we consider who these women are and their “questionable past,” it is clear that Matthew has incorporated them into the genealogy as part of his argument that just because a woman has “a questionable past” does not mean that God cannot use her, nor does it mean that she should be excluded from God’s plan, since all four women make up Jesus’ genealogy.  Now this argument makes complete sense if the genealogy belongs to Mary, since she is the one who is facing the raised suspicions, but if this genealogy belongs to Joseph, then the inclusion of these four women make absolutely no sense at all, since he is NOT the one under suspicion of acting inappropriately.

5.  THE PROMISE GIVEN TO HER BY GABRIEL

Another reason I believe that this is Mary’s genealogy and not Joseph’s is the message given to Mary from the angel Gabriel in Luke’s Gospel,

Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God.  And, behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the LORD God shall give unto Him THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID: AND HE SHALL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER; AND OF HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END. (Luke 1:30-33)

Now when Mary questions how could this happen since she was not married or been intimate with a man, Gabriel explains:

The Holy Ghost [Spirit] shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that HOLY thing which be born of you shall be called THE SON OF GOD. (Luke 1:35; Emphasis Mine)

This explanation was not penned by Mary, but by a trained Greek medical physician.  If anyone would have been suspicious to an immaculate conception, he would’ve been.  But he was clear in the beginning that he had set these things down, so “you would know the certainty of those things, where you have been instructed” (Luke 1:4).  Obviously, he had done “his homework” to check the validity of these things before setting them down in writing.

JOSEPH – NOT OF THE ROYAL LINE?

Now compare what the angel told Mary with what the same angel told Joseph:

You Son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost [Spirit].  And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins. (Matthew 1:20-21)

There’s not one mention here of David’s throne, or the fact of Jesus ruling and reigning over the house of Jacob.  If the Matthew genealogy actually belonged to Joseph, as Christians have been traditionally taught, then wouldn’t it make sense for the angel to speak to Joseph about the throne, instead of Mary? But this isn’t what happened.  The angel Gabriel speaks to Joseph about the spiritual – “He shall save His people from their sins -” but to Mary, he speaks to her about the Davidic throne.

The very fact that Mary, who is the ONLY biological parent of Jesus, is spoken to about the Davidic throne and the Kingdom clearly demonstrate that it is she, and NOT JOSEPH, who is the actual true descendant of David and Solomon, NOT Joseph.  Reaffirming again, that the Matthew genealogy belongs to her and not Joseph, and that his genealogy is the one given in Luke 3.

6.  THE CROWNING OF KING SOLOMON

Although both genealogies trace the ancestry back to King David, only Matthew’s goes through the line of Solomon.  And according to the Scriptures, the royal lineage would be through David, and Solomon and his son, Rehoboam (Matthew 1:6-7), but not through David’s other son, Nathan, seen in Luke’s genealogy.  interestingly, when Solomon is born, the Scriptures tell us “and the LORD loved him” (2 Samuel 12:25), a statement that’s not made about any of David’s other sons, giving us an early indication of who would be chosen to succeed David as King.

And although in I Kings, Bathsheba reminds David that he had sworn by the LORD God that Solomon would succeed him (I Kings 1:17), a promise David reconfirms (I Kings 1:28-30), and then makes it happen (I Kings 1:32-53), in I Chronicles 28, we learn that it was God, in fact, who had chosen Solomon to succeed the throne (I Chronicles 28:5).  Therefore, the royal lineage has to go through Solomon, and not through any other of David’s sons.  And since Mary’s name actually appears in the Matthew lineage, and Mary is only human parent that Jesus has, it only makes sense that the genealogy in Matthew must belong to her.

7.  PAUL’S INTRODUCTION IN ROMANS

Another reason that the Matthew genealogy must belong to Mary since it traces her ancestry back to David and Solomon is the statement that Paul makes in his introduction to the church in Rome.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,) concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which WAS MADE OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH;….” (Romans 1:1-3)

This is Paul telling us that Jesus was, in fact, physically descended from David, Solomon, and Rehoboam.  Paul did not say that Jesus was descended from David through marriage or even adoption, but through “the flesh.”  He was a physical descendant and, therefore, He has every legal right to the throne.

7.  THE TEACHING OF GOD’S LAW.

Now Jews have traditionally argued that Jewish nationality and tribal identity come through the father, not the mother.  So since God was His father, and not Joseph, they have argued that Jesus does not have the right to be called “a Jew,” “a son of David,” much less “the lion of the tribe of Judah.”  However, it was Mary, not Joseph, who was Jesus’ ONLY physical human parent.  Therefore, the answer lies, not in adoption, but in God’s law given to Moses.

In the Inheritance Laws in Numbers 27, a case is brought before Moses.  The five daughters of Zelophehad, a descendant of Joseph’s, was dead, and their father had no sons, to continue the family line.  Therefore, their inheritance would’ve been lost; however, God tells Moses that their request that they be allowed to inherit along with the other males in the tribe was a legitimate request and was to be honored.

The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: you shall surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and you shall cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. (Numbers 27:7)

This, therefore, provides a legal precedence for Jesus, who does not have a human male parent to be able to inherit His nationality and His tribal identity. In addition, since it is His mother, Mary, who is the true descendant of David, Solomon and Rehoboam, then according to the precedence in God’s law as well, Jesus is the rightful, legal heir of the throne of David and the promised Kingdom, as Paul stated “through the flesh.”

CONCLUSION

There’s more to the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew than to give a list of the names of the family tree.  Matthew wrote it as part of his defense of Mary’s character and also to argue that in spite of a “woman’s questionable past,” God can still use her for His glory and she can even make up the royal family tree of David, Solomon, and ultimately, Messiah Himself.  And finally, Matthew wrote it to substantiate and prove Jesus’ physical legal right by birth to the Davidic throne and to the promised Kingdom of God.

 

Return to the top