May 17, 2016

Light is where you see it by Gary Rose



This rustic scene could easily be in the Alps, the Pyrenees or the Rocky mountains, but wherever isn't important, the beauty of it all is.  There is (was) one problem, however; those two patches of light in the center and left of the mountain.  At first I just thought it was an incorrect focus of the picture (too many highlights), but when I adjusted it all the way to black and white- both were still there.   After considerable adjustment (and compromise) I like this result the best and hope you do as well. After looking at the picture for quite some time, I was reminded of how the Modern Literal translation translates Matthew 5:14 and wondered how some different translations handle this verse?

Matthew Chapter 5 (Modern Literal version)
 5:14 You* are the light of the world. A city laying upon a mountain is not able to be hid. 

LITV
 14 You are the light of the world. A city situated on a mountain cannot be hidden.

Darby
14 *Ye* are the light of the world: a city situated on the top of a mountain cannot be hid.

Living Oracles
14 You are the light of the world. A city situate on a mountain must be conspicuous.

(ASV)
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.

Now, normally I use the World English Bible, but the word "mountain" more accurately reflects the original language rather than the WEB or ASV translation "hill". And besides- mountain provides more emphasis and imagery, anyway!!!

About this time, you are probably thinking how picky I am- but consider... What if it was you instead of those strikingly white patches of cloud in that picture?  

Would your garments be white like Jesus' were in Matthew 17:2?  Would MINE?

To put it another way- Is my life like Jesus'???

Wow, a thought about clouds in a mountain in "the cloud". Isn't technology ironic????

Bible Reading May 17 by Gary Rose


Bible Reading  
May 17
The World English Bible

May 17
Joshua 15, 16

Jos 15:1 The lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families was to the border of Edom, even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south.
Jos 15:2 Their south border was from the uttermost part of the Salt Sea, from the bay that looks southward;
Jos 15:3 and it went out southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and went up by the south of Kadesh Barnea, and passed along by Hezron, went up to Addar, and turned about to Karka;
Jos 15:4 and it passed along to Azmon, went out at the brook of Egypt; and the border ended at the sea. This shall be your south border.
Jos 15:5 The east border was the Salt Sea, even to the end of the Jordan. The border of the north quarter was from the bay of the sea at the end of the Jordan.
Jos 15:6 The border went up to Beth Hoglah, and passed along by the north of Beth Arabah; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben.
Jos 15:7 The border went up to Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that is over against the ascent of Adummim, which is on the south side of the river. The border passed along to the waters of En Shemesh, and ended at En Rogel.
Jos 15:8 The border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom to the side of the Jebusite southward (the same is Jerusalem); and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lies before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the farthest part of the valley of Rephaim northward.
Jos 15:9 The border extended from the top of the mountain to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities of Mount Ephron; and the border extended to Baalah (the same is Kiriath Jearim);
Jos 15:10 and the border turned about from Baalah westward to Mount Seir, and passed along to the side of Mount Jearim on the north (the same is Chesalon), and went down to Beth Shemesh, and passed along by Timnah;
Jos 15:11 and the border went out to the side of Ekron northward; and the border extended to Shikkeron, and passed along to Mount Baalah, and went out at Jabneel; and the goings out of the border were at the sea.
Jos 15:12 The west border was to the shore of the great sea. This is the border of the children of Judah according to their families.
Jos 15:13 To Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a portion among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of Yahweh to Joshua, even Kiriath Arba, named after the father of Anak (the same is Hebron).
Jos 15:14 Caleb drove out the three sons of Anak: Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak.
Jos 15:15 He went up against the inhabitants of Debir: now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher.
Jos 15:16 Caleb said, "He who strikes Kiriath Sepher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife."
Jos 15:17 Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.
Jos 15:18 It happened, when she came, that she had him ask her father fore a field. She got off of her donkey, and Caleb said, "What do you want?"
Jos 15:19 She said, "Give me a blessing. Because you have set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water." He gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.
Jos 15:20 This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families.
Jos 15:21 The farthest cities of the tribe of the children of Judah toward the border of Edom in the South were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur,
Jos 15:22 Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah,
Jos 15:23 Kedesh, Hazor, Ithnan,
Jos 15:24 Ziph, Telem, Bealoth,
Jos 15:25 Hazor Hadattah, Kerioth Hezron (the same is Hazor),
Jos 15:26 Amam, Shema, Moladah,
Jos 15:27 Hazar Gaddah, Heshmon, Beth Pelet,
Jos 15:28 Hazar Shual, Beersheba, Biziothiah,
Jos 15:29 Baalah, Iim, Ezem,
Jos 15:30 Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah,
Jos 15:31 Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah,
Jos 15:32 Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon. All the cities are twenty-nine, with their villages.
Jos 15:33 In the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah,
Jos 15:34 Zanoah, En Gannim, Tappuah, Enam,
Jos 15:35 Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah,
Jos 15:36 Shaaraim, Adithaim and Gederah (or Gederothaim); fourteen cities with their villages.
Jos 15:37 Zenan, Hadashah, Migdal Gad,
Jos 15:38 Dilean, Mizpeh, Joktheel,
Jos 15:39 Lachish, Bozkath, Eglon,
Jos 15:40 Cabbon, Lahmam, Chitlish,
Jos 15:41 Gederoth, Beth Dagon, Naamah, and Makkedah; sixteen cities with their villages.
Jos 15:42 Libnah, Ether, Ashan,
Jos 15:43 Iphtah, Ashnah, Nezib,
Jos 15:44 Keilah, Achzib, and Mareshah; nine cities with their villages.
Jos 15:45 Ekron, with its towns and its villages;
Jos 15:46 from Ekron even to the sea, all that were by the side of Ashdod, with their villages.
Jos 15:47 Ashdod, its towns and its villages; Gaza, its towns and its villages; to the brook of Egypt, and the great sea with its coastline.
Jos 15:48 In the hill country, Shamir, Jattir, Socoh,
Jos 15:49 Dannah, Kiriath Sannah (which is Debir),
Jos 15:50 Anab, Eshtemoh, Anim,
Jos 15:51 Goshen, Holon, and Giloh; eleven cities with their villages.
Jos 15:52 Arab, Dumah, Eshan,
Jos 15:53 Janim, Beth Tappuah, Aphekah,
Jos 15:54 Humtah, Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron), and Zior; nine cities with their villages.
Jos 15:55 Maon, Carmel, Ziph, Jutah,
Jos 15:56 Jezreel, Jokdeam, Zanoah,
Jos 15:57 Kain, Gibeah, and Timnah; ten cities with their villages.
Jos 15:58 Halhul, Beth Zur, Gedor,
Jos 15:59 Maarath, Beth Anoth, and Eltekon; six cities with their villages.
Jos 15:60 Kiriath Baal (the same is Kiriath Jearim), and Rabbah; two cities with their villages.
Jos 15:61 In the wilderness, Beth Arabah, Middin, Secacah,
Jos 15:62 Nibshan, the City of Salt, and En Gedi; six cities with their villages.
Jos 15:63 As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn't drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.

Jos 16:1 The lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.
Jos 16:2 It went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along to the border of the Archites to Ataroth;
Jos 16:3 and it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth Horon the lower, even to Gezer; and ended at the sea.
Jos 16:4 The children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.
Jos 16:5 This was the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families. The border of their inheritance eastward was Ataroth Addar, to Beth Horon the upper.
Jos 16:6 The border went out westward at Michmethath on the north. The border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah.
Jos 16:7 It went down from Janoah to Ataroth, to Naarah, reached to Jericho, and went out at the Jordan.
Jos 16:8 From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah; and ended at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their families;
Jos 16:9 together with the cities which were set apart for the children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages.
Jos 16:10 They didn't drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim to this day, and have become servants to do forced labor.


May 16, 17
John 1

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn't receive him.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name:
Joh 1:13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.' "
Joh 1:16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
Joh 1:19 This is John's testimony, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
Joh 1:20 He confessed, and didn't deny, but he confessed, "I am not the Christ."
Joh 1:21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" He answered, "No."
Joh 1:22 They said therefore to him, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
Joh 1:23 He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said."
Joh 1:24 The ones who had been sent were from the Pharisees.
Joh 1:25 They asked him, "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"
Joh 1:26 John answered them, "I baptize in water, but among you stands one whom you don't know.
Joh 1:27 He is the one who comes after me, who is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I'm not worthy to loosen."
Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Joh 1:29 The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.'
Joh 1:31 I didn't know him, but for this reason I came baptizing in water: that he would be revealed to Israel."
Joh 1:32 John testified, saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I didn't recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me, 'On whomever you will see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'
Joh 1:34 I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."
Joh 1:35 Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples,
Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"
Joh 1:37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
Joh 1:38 Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), "where are you staying?"
Joh 1:39 He said to them, "Come, and see." They came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.
Joh 1:40 One of the two who heard John, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Joh 1:41 He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah!" (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
Joh 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Joh 1:43 On the next day, he was determined to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, "Follow me."
Joh 1:44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.
Joh 1:45 Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Joh 1:46 Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!"
Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!"
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered him, "Because I told you, 'I saw you underneath the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these!"
Joh 1:51 He said to him, "Most certainly, I tell you, hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

Abiding in Him by Richard Mansel


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/abiding.html

Abiding in Him

How will we be found when the Lord returns? The time of the Lord's return is a mystery. "Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only" (Matthew 24:36). So, how should we be conducting ourselves?
John writes, "And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" (1 John 2:28-29).
Since Christ came and died for us and gave of Himself so freely (Galatians 2:20) we ought to spend ourselves for His kingdom. We should prepare ourselves and conduct our lives so we will not be ashamed when we stand before Him.
To be ashamed, as John writes, means to "grow pale, to change color from shame." We certainly do not want to be the ones ashamed on the Day of Judgment. Instead, sinners and 'Christians' who have scoffed at Christianity, justified drinking, fornication, false teachings, blasphemy and the like, will lose color and will strangle their laughs when they realize Christ is real and has come with a sword of vengeance (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Romans 1:28-32).
John writes that we must know God is righteous. He has all truth and has supplied us with sacred truths in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
John also writes that we must be born of Him. Only in Him will we find salvation (John 3:3-5). Otherwise, we will be found with the sinners and will be lost forever (Matthew 25).
Finally, John writes that we should practice righteousness. We live for Him every day of our lives. Then because we are faithful to His cause we become filled with boldness. Proverbs 28:1 says, "The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion."
Boldness here involves speaking freely. People speak out concerning matters they are passionate about whether it be politics, hobbies or gossip. Since we have boldness and confidence, we can be busy in the practice of righteousness. A 'practicing attorney' is someone who is active in this profession. What are we doing to practice righteousness? Is it obvious to those among whom we circulate daily? If not, how can we be "lights to the world?" (Matthew 5:16).
Richard Mansel


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Omar Khayyam and chess by Jim McGuiggan



Omar Khayyam and chess

The Persian mathematician and poet, Omar Khayyam insisted that we are, "But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays Upon this Chequer-board of Nights and Days; Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays, And one by one back in the Closet lays." And it would appear that even the great Player himself is as determined by fate as the rest of us. "And that inverted Bowl they call the Sky, Where under crawling coop'd we live and die, Lift not your hands to It for help--for It As impotently moves as you or I."
But George Arthur Buttrick would have none of it. "Almost every word in the dictionary refutes the poem. The word ‘coward,’ for instance means that a man is free to be brave; and the sign ‘Keep out’ means we are free to enter. Always the arguments are on the side of fixed fate; always our instant assumptions are on the side of free will, and we cannot help making the assumptions. We deduce by apparently unbreakable logic that we are bound, but we still assume that our brilliant argument is free. Not soon shall I forget the sight of a psychologist, famous for the doctrine that all our actions are but inevitable responses to external stimuli, pleading with mothers to train their children in the theory. What use in pleading? Despite his doctrine he had to assume that the mothers could choose to train their children in some other theory."
Words like praise, blame, wrong, sin, good and ten thousand like them deny the claim that we are bound by iron determinism because they all imply that things could possibly be other than they are. If the whole of reality (including those who reflect on that reality) is bound by chance and the necessity of physics (Jacques Monod) not only can we not "blame" we cannot "praise". We are left speechless or at least we know in our bones that our speech is patent nonsense. Not many are like the Stratonician atheist, Bertrand Russell, who openly confessed that there were things going on in the world that troubled him deep within, things he felt compelled to condemn but he knew, he said, that he had no rational grounds to condemn them. Might as well blame a chess piece for moving into a losing square as blame a man for raping a child. Might as well praise an apple for falling down off a tree as praising a parent for loving a child. In a reality where every particle and form of reality is a pre-played chess game there is neither praise nor blame, good or bad.
It might be amusing if it were not so pathetic to hear religious people sniff in derision at the physical and philosophical determinism of non-believers and then substitute for it their theological determinism. In the end whether it’s Omar Khayyam or some rabid hyper-Calvinist, "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass." Ah, no! Sin is our own!
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Jonah and the "Whale"? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=69&b=Jonah

Jonah and the "Whale"?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Skeptics frequently have railed against the allusion to a “whale” in Matthew 12:40 in the King James Version. They have insisted that the very idea that a person actually could be swallowed by such a creature and survive is preposterous. Yet this charge has been shown to be impotent for two reasons: (1) historical precedent exists for the possibility of just such an occurrence; and (2) the text of Jonah insists that the sea creature in question was orchestrated supernaturally by God for the purpose intended (see Thompson, 1996, 16:86). God specifically “prepared” (mahnah—appointed, constituted, made ready) a great fish (Gesenius, 1847, p. 486). The same term is employed in the same book to refer to additional direct manipulations initiated by God. He also prepared a plant (4:6), a worm (4:7), and a vehement wind (4:8) [see Wigram, 1890, p. 733]. George Cansdale was correct in concluding: “[T]here is no point in speculating about the full physical explanation of an incident that primarily is metaphysical, i.e., miraculous” (1975, 5:925, emp. added). McClintock and Strong agree: “[T]he transaction is plainly miraculous, and no longer within the sphere of zoological discussion” (1881, 10:972). Jonah’s survival after being inside a sea creature is no more remarkable than Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego surviving the “burning fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:27).
In addition to the evidence that may be deduced for (1) the credibility of a whale swallowing Jonah and (2) the miraculous preparation of the creature by God, a third clarification is in order that pertains to translation. The actual text of the book of Jonah states that “the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah” (Jonah 1:17). The Hebrew term (dahg) that underlies the English translation “fish” (1:17; 2:1,10) is a broad term that “always has the collective meaning ‘fish’ ” (Botterweck, 1978, 3:135). William Gesenius, whose lexicographical labors in the Hebrew language were without peer, defined dahg merely as “fish” (p. 189). Eminent Hebrew scholar, C.F. Keil, insisted strongly that “[t]he great fish, which is not more precisely defined, was not a whale” (Keil and Delitzsch, 1977, 10:398, emp. added). We conclude, therefore, that the word used in the book of Jonah to refer to the sea creature that swallowed Jonah, refers indiscriminately to any type of fish—without regard for the technical taxonomic, classification schemes developed by the scientific community in the last few centuries. It has the same generic latitude that inheres in the English word “fish” has, which can refer to any number of cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates—from a trout, bass, or crappie to sharks, rays, jellyfish, and crayfish (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, p. 665).
However, a point of clarification needs to be sounded even here. According to the present zoological nomenclature, a “whale” is not a “fish”—it is classified as a mammal. Hebrew linguistic experts note no such distinction in the terms used in the Old Testament. The ordinary term for “fish” (dahg) would not necessarily exclude the whale in its application.
The Hebrew uses three additional terms that are germane to this discussion. Two of the words are closely interrelated: tan-neem and tan-neen. The first term generally is translated (though erroneously) as “dragon” in the KJV. Newer translations typically use “jackal,” except in Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2, where the creature’s habitat is obviously aquatic, so “monster” generally is employed (Day, 1939, 2:873). The second term is treated more loosely in the KJV, and variously translated as “whales” (Genesis 1:21; Job 7:12), “serpent,” archaic for “snake” (Exodus 7:9,10), “dragon” (Jeremiah 51:34), and “sea monsters” (Lamentations 4:3). The third relevant term is “leviathan”—a transliteration of the Hebrew term liv-yah-thahn(Job 41:1; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1). This “very large aquatic creature” (Gesenius, p. 433) was unquestionably a now-extinct, dinosaur-like reptile that once inhabited the oceans (Lyons, 2001). Whereas the term “leviathan” undoubtedly refers to a specific type of animal, the previous two terms (tan-neem and tan-neen) are generic and nonspecific like dahg. [Interestingly, Isaiah 27:1 refers to leviathan as both a “snake” (nah-ghahsh) and a “monster,” or “reptile” (NKJV) (tah-neen)].
What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that on the fifth day of Creation, God created sea life. He used two terms to specify these inhabitants of the “waters.” The first was “souls” (Genesis 1:20,21b)—the ordinary term for living “things,” or “creatures” (nephesh). The second was “sea-monsters” (Genesis 1:21a)—the plural of tan-neen (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1967/77, p. 2). This latter term is important for understanding the generic nature of the Hebrew language in its reference to the animal occupants of the sea. The word is translated erroneously as “whales” in the KJV. The NKJVhas “sea creatures,” the ASV, NASB, RSV, and NEB have “sea monsters,” while the NIV has “creatures of the sea.” These latter three renderings are accurate representations of the Hebrew. They illustrate the in-built ambiguity that characterizes the Hebrew designations of animal species in the Old Testament. [NOTE: The term translated “birds” (Genesis 1:20,21, 22,26,28,30) doubtless possesses the same latitude and indiscriminate flexibility in meaning, thereby designating any creature that has the capability of flight, including mammals (e.g., bats), insects, and reptiles (e.g., pterodactyl).]
Moving to New Testament Greek, and the verse under discussion in this article (Matthew 12:40), did Christ refer to the great fish of Jonah as a “whale”? Matthew records that Jesus employed the Greek term ketos to refer to Jonah’s sea creature. The Septuagint translators used the same term in their rendering of Jonah 1:17. Greek lexicographers are decisive on the meaning of this word. The highly respected Greek scholars Arndt and Gingrich offer only one definition for ketos—“sea-monster” (1957, p. 432). The dictionary that was designed for use with the United Bible Societies’ prestigious Greek New Testament text (A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament) defined ketos as “large sea creature” (Newman, 1971, p. 100). Thayer listed three terms—“sea-monster, whale, huge fish” (1901, p. 346), with the reference to “whale” being merely one possibility among many others within the broader sense of the term. Renowned Bible commentator Albert Barnes insisted: “It is well known that the Greek word translated as whale, in the New Testament, does not of necessity mean a whale, but may denote a large fish or sea-monster of any kind” (1949, 1:134, italics in orig.). He speculated that the creature was a species of shark. McClintock and Strong elaborated further by noting that the term “is not restricted in its meaning to ‘a whale,’ or any cetacean; ...it may denote any sea-monster, either ‘a whale,’ or ‘a shark,’ or a ‘seal,’ or ‘a tunny of enormous size’ ” (10:973). Respected Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey wrote: “The Greek word here translated whale is ‘sea monster’ ” (n.d., p. 306). Lenski also preferred the rendering “sea monster,” stating that “[t]he ‘whale’ of our versions isonly an effort at translation” (1961, 1:493, emp. added).
The versionary evidence is surely confusing to the average English reader of the New Testament. The KJV, ASV, andRSV all render ketos in Matthew 12:40 as “whale.” Their rationale behind this unjustifiable linguistic decision, which Lewis maintains has created “an unnecessary problem” (1976, 2:178-179), remains a mystery. Ironically, all three versions translate Jonah 1:17 as “fish.” On the other hand, the NASB, NEB, and REB all have “sea monster” in Matthew 12:40. Three translations that handled the matter in a comparable fashion to each other include the GNB (“big fish”), theNIV (“huge fish”), and the NKJV (“great fish”). It also should be noted that, as a matter of fact, the generic word in Greek for “fish” is ichthus—not ketos. The latter term varies from the former in that ketos refers generically to a sea monster, or perhaps, a huge fish (cf. Vine, 1952, p. 209).
What conclusion is to be drawn from these linguistic data? Both the Hebrew and Greek languages lacked the precision to identify with specificity the identity of the creature that swallowed Jonah. As Earl S. Kalland affirmed, “[t]he identity or biological classification of this great water monster is unknown” (1980, 1:401). Both dahg and ketos “designate sea creatures of undefined species” (Lewis, 2:178).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Arndt, W.F. and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1978), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Cansdale, George S. (1975), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Day, Alfred Ely (1939), “Dragon,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, James Orr, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Kalland, Earl S. (1980), “dagdaga,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1977 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lewis, Jack P. (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,” Reason and Revelation, 21:1-7, January.
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1881), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970 reprint).
Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1971), A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Thompson, Bert (1996), “Jonah, Jesus, and Anti-supernaturalism,” Reason and Revelation, 16:86, November.
Vine, W.E. (1952), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=5155&b=Matthew

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One common misconception regarding the behavior of Jesus is that, on occasion, in healing the sick and performing other benevolent actions, He broke the Sabbath in order to accommodate the higher law of love. This viewpoint leaves the impression that law is sometimes, if not frequently, antithetical to being loving. It implies that sometimes breaking God’s laws is necessary in order to be loving. This notion, of course, is flawed and contrary to Bible teaching. As Paul explained to the Romans: “he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments…are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). Paul meant that when you obey the law’s directives concerning how to conduct yourself toward your neighbor, you will be engaging in loving behavior. To love, one must enact God’s laws.
The fact is the perfect Son of God obeyed all of God’s laws, never violating even one Divine precept (Hebrews 4:15). Sin is defined as violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Since Jesus was sinless, He never broke God’s laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. Those who leveled such an accusation against Him were, in fact, mistaken.

THE POOL

Take, for example, the incident in John 5, when Jesus caused a man, who suffered from a 38-year-old ailment, to rise from his bed of confinement and walk. The fact that Jesus’ action took place on the Sabbath drew the criticism of the Jews who promptly informed the man, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed” (vs. 10). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful conformity to the Law. They would assume that He would chide the Jews for their “nit-picky, legalistic” approach to religion, and that He would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. But this viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs 29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves divinely intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’ handling of His critics illustrates the high regard He had for law, the necessity of carefully conforming to that law, and the critical importance of applying it accurately.
In John 7, calling attention to the miracle He performed in chapter 5, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day fell on the Sabbath.
Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally. One must be very careful that he is “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB) and not “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2).

THE SYNAGOGUE

Another instance in which Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen on the occasion when Jesus entered the synagogue and encountered a man who had a deformed hand (Matthew 12:9-13). This circumstance prompted His enemies to ask Him a question in hopes of being able to accuse Him of breaking the Law. They asked: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Of course, they had pre-decided that the answer to the question was “no,” and that, in fact, the Law would naturally forbid such an action.
Unfortunately, the prevailing interpretation of the Law of Moses at the time, at least among the Jewish leaders, was that the Sabbath law enjoined total inactivity—as if everyone was to sit down for 24 hours and do absolutely nothing. This view was a distortion of God’s Law on the matter. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities (that could rightly be designated “work”) that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. On this occasion, Jesus pinpointed one such instance: “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (vs. 11). Jesus was recalling a directive from the Law of Moses:
You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself. You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; cf. Exodus 23:4-5).
Such passages give insight into the nature of God and provide tremendous assistance in making proper application of God’s laws to everyday circumstances.
Observe that God’s laws never contradict or countermand each other. Unlike manmade laws which often manifest inconsistency and contradiction, God’s laws function in perfect harmony with each other. The Mosaic passage to which Jesus alluded demonstrates that the general principle of the cessation of usual work on the Sabbath did not conflict with any number of specific circumstances in which benevolence and compassion were to be expressed. In an agriculturally based society, a family’s survival depends on its farm animals. If a sheep, ox, or donkey were to break out of its stall, flee the premises, and then fall into a pit from which it would be unable to extricate itself, the animal would most likely die or become seriously ill if left in its predicament for 24 hours. To expend the necessary effort (i.e., “work”) to retrieve the animal from danger was not considered by God to be included in the Sabbath prohibition. Hence, Jesus stated the logical conclusion: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (vs. 12). If action could be exerted to see to the well-being of a dumb animal, then obviously, God would approve of action taken to see to the physical care of a human being! Here, once again, is Jesus’ argument placed in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath.
Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
The logic is penetrating and decisive. Indeed, “they could not answer Him regarding these things” (Luke 14:6; see also Luke 6:6-11). Far from suggesting that law is unimportant and may be ignored under the guise of “human need,” or implying that humans can break the “letter of the law” in order to keep the “spirit of the law” (see Miller, 2003), Jesus demonstrated that inherently built into God’s laws are all concerns deemed by Deity to be necessary. The benevolent, loving thing to do willalways harmonize with God’s laws, since “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10), i.e., every truly loving action has already been defined by God in His legal admonitions.

THE GRAIN FIELD

A final instance in which Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen in the grain field incident (Matthew 12:1-8). Many commentators automatically assume that the charge leveled against Jesus’ disciples by the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge. However, when the disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain from a neighbor’s field, they were doing that which was perfectly lawful (Deuteronomy 23:25). Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they had pulled out a sickle and begun harvesting the grain, they would have been violating the Sabbath law. However, they were picking strictly for the purpose of eating immediately—an action that was in complete harmony with Mosaic legislation (“but that which everyone must eat”—Exodus 12:16). A modern equivalent might be reaching for a box of cereal on the pantry shelf, pouring it in a bowl, retrieving the milk from the refrigerator, pouring it on the cereal, and eating it. The Pharisees’ charge that the disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the Sabbath was simply an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).
Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational device designated by logicians asargumentum ad hominem (literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of this argument, which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s inconsistency, and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).
Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’ strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob, tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him into giving to his traveling companions the showbread, or “bread of the Presence” (12 flat cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the Tabernacle [Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6])—bread that legally was reserved only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf. Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the law. Did the Pharisees condemn him? Absolutely not! They revered David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a thousand years after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts 2:29; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1; Josephus, 1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples of Jesus, who were innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.
After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their attention to the priests who worked in the Temple on the Sabbath (12:5; e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—not guilty—of violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be performed on that day. As previously noted, the Sabbath law did not imply that everyone was to sit down and do nothing. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. Again, examples of such authorization included eating, Temple service, circumcision (John 7:22), tending to the basic care of animals (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending kindness or assistance to the needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6; John 5:5-9; 7:23). The divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the priests proved that the accusation of the Pharisees brought against Jesus’ disciples was false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5) is an example of the figure of speech known as metonymy of the adjunct in which “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan, 1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the “mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father” of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men” (e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the appearance of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true according to the mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (1898, p. 676, emp. added).]
After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on Tabernacle/Temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God! After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater than the pre-Christianity Temple service conducted by Old Testament priests.
For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused on their hearts: “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament context (Hosea 6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against the mere external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws, to the neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s law. They were masquerading under that pretense (cf. Matthew 15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of desiring careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law keeping was hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own obedience and concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and were more concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with honest, genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of mankind.
They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was laudable, their misapplication of it, as well as their own neglect and rejection of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83]. God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather, He was saying that He did not want sacrifice alone. He wanted mercy with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.
Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e., alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to destroy all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).
While the disciples were guilty of violating an injunction that the Pharisees had concocted (supposing the injunction to be a genuine implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were not guilty of a violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for enjoining their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law upon others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.
Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!
Matthew 12 does not teach that Jesus broke the Sabbath or sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are never optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12; 19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that if the heart is receptive to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard” (Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it, then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60), “narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).

CONCLUSION

The religion of Christ surpasses all human religion. It is rooted in the very essence of Deity. When Jesus took on human form on Earth, He showed Himself to be the Master logician and exegete Who always conducted Himself in a rational manner and conformed His actions to divine law. May we do likewise.
[NOTE: For more on Jesus’ handling of the Sabbath, see Miller, 2004.]

REFERENCES

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Copi, Irving (1972), Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint), Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint), Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Miller, Dave (2003), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645&topic=38.