Matthew 1:18-25 Birth

The Birth of The King

Vs. 18 – Matthew begins to describe how Jesus birth took place. He makes it clear that Mary and Joseph’s relationship was in the betrothal phase and that this was prior to any sexual activity (i.e. “before they came together”). Betrothal was similar to what we would consider “engaged” in our country, though, it was much more legally complex under Rabbinical Law (see verse 19 below). Matthew states that she was found to be with child and then explains that the child was “of the Holy Spirit.” Luke tells us that an angel appeared to Mary and explained to her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). We ought not to think of Mary’s conception as something carnal as taught by the Mormons. On the contrary, her conception was miraculously accomplished by the power of God.

Jesus's birth was a miraculous event given by God.

Jesus’s birth was a miraculous event given by God.

Vs. 19 – No doubt it was a bit of a shock for Joseph to find this out. Mary, being the innocent woman that she was, would not have been expected by Joseph to behave in the normal way in which pregnancy generally results. But one could hardly argue with such evidence and so he proceeded to divorce her. We don’t know much regarding the conversation that took place between Joseph and Mary. One could imagine Joseph’s incredulity upon hearing Mary’s claim that this was God’s doing, but the scriptures don’t speak regarding those details. He evidently assumed the worse.

Matthew calls Jospeph Mary’s “husband” in lieu of the betrothal. In betrothal, one was considered legally bound to one’s future mate and a formal declaration of divorce had to be obtained to dissolve the relationship. Such could be obtained publicly to the shame and embarrassment of the one being put away; however, Joseph chose not to do that, but instead, he was minded to handle the matter privately, indicating his respect for Mary and her family, and also a godly attitude. It showed that Joseph did love her (Proverbs 17:9) and that he was indeed a “just” man.

Vs. 20 – Joseph was evidently preoccupied with the whole affair because Matthew tells us that he gave it some deliberation, i.e. he thought about it. I’m not sure that any fiance wouldn’t have thought about it, but Joseph evidently gave it much consideration. It was while he was so engaged in considering it that the angel appeared to him “in a dream.” The word for “dream” in this verse is used exclusively by Matthew in the New Testament. Verse twenty-four tells us he was sleeping. Was this a nap or did it come to him in the night? I’m not sure we can tell. The natural thing would be to assume it was a dream during the course of the night. One often finds relief in sleep during difficult periods in one’s life. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Joseph, being distressed by this situation, sought temporary solace in this manner. The bed of a young man with such troubles often softens such boisterous thoughts. Thus, having thought on these things he slept and dreamed.

The word “angel” literally means “messenger,” but has been transliterated by our translators to distinguish a heavenly sent messenger from an earthly one. There are occasions where the word is transliterated in the New Testament when perhaps it should not be, but usually the word is used to refer to heavenly messengers. It is clear in this text that this was a heavenly messenger being described as an “angel of the Lord.” The message of this messenger follows.

The messenger reminds Joseph that he is a son of David; he is in the royal lineage. This reminder opens Joseph’s mind to the possibility that God indeed was telling him something as it was not unheard of in Israel for God to so communicate with royalty. Moreover, many were in expectation of the coming of the Messiah at this time and Joseph, no doubt, would have known of such discussions. Reminding him of his lineage reminds him of God’s promise that the Messiah would indeed come through David and this was wholly acknowledged in his day (Matthew 22:42-45).

Joseph was not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Why would he have had reason to fear? One has much to fear from an unchaste woman: disease, infidelity, psychological problems, and in Joseph’s day, the stigma of shame that one might receive from one’s family should such a thing be known. Joseph may also have been concerned about the potential presumption that he, Joseph, may have been the offending party. But happily, such fears were unwarranted in this case.

At the end of verse twenty, the angel here reiterates what Matthew has already told us. See comments on vs. 18 above.

Vs. 21- The message also contained the promise of Mary’s Son’s birth and the name by which He was to be called, “Jesus.” In Hebrew the name is “Joshua.” It means, “God saves.” The messenger also tells us the thing from which the people would be saved, namely, their sins and so He did (Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 1:4, Ephesians 5:2, 1 Peter 2:24).

The “people” that are referred to in this particular verse are the Jewish people, that is, “His people.” But we know that it was God’s plan to save not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). Matthew’s mentioning salvation for Jesus’ people testifies as to the unique Jewish character of the account.

Vs. 22 – We need not suppose that the angel’s message continues here as Matthew interposes some editorial comments at this point. He explains to us that this was done to fulfill prophecy. Matthew, more than any other accountant of the gospel story, tells us of more prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Another sign that the flavor of his account was to engage the Jewish mind. The prophecies that Matthew cites are convincing proof that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Isaiah is, of course, the prophet under consideration now through which the Lord spoke. Matthew confirms what Peter explicitly states that it was God who moved through these prophets to speak the things that they uttered (2 Peter 2:20, 21). The word “prophet” is another word that has been transliterated from the Greek language. It literally means one who speaks forth or a foreteller. The Hebrew equivalent means “to bubble forth.” While we normally consider “prophecy” to be related to events of the future, the word may encompass anything spoken by God’s authority whether it relates to the future, past, or present. In this case, of course, the prophet spoke of future events.

Vs. 23 – Matthew quotes from Isaiah 7:14. This is perhaps one of the great controversies in the religious world. Many suggest that the Hebrew “Almah” simply means young woman and thus deny the force of the prophecy. Matthew, however, clearly understands Isaiah to be speaking regarding a virgin (Greek: “parthenos”). Matthew, himself being a Hebrew, would be in a position to know what the Hebrew word “Almah” meant and he makes his understanding clear. The Septuagint (LXX), a translation composed prior to and independently of the New Testament writers, confirms Matthew’s understanding of the word by using the Greek word “parthenos” in Isaiah 7:14. There is no reason to translate “Almah” as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 except to prejudicially deny what Matthew affirms. Indeed, a virgin, Mary, did conceive, by power of the Holy Spirit; a Son was born, Jesus, and He was, in fact, God in human form (Isaiah 9:6, Titus 2:13).

Matthew, in a parenthetical statement, explains to the Greek reader what the Hebrew word “Immanuel” means, “God with us.” It is not sufficient to believe that Jesus was anything less than God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. John affirms such in John 1:1. Jesus himself affirmed, “Before Abraham was born, ‘I AM'” (John 8:58). Paul also states clearly that Jesus is God the creator (Colossians 1:15-17). Peter too, in 2 Peter 1:1, states that Jesus is “God and our Savior.” The divinity of Christ is one of the central tenets of Christianity; those who deny it, deny the gospel.

Vs. 24 – Joseph was no fool. Now that he realized the truth of Mary’s circumstance, he obeyed the heavenly message and took Mary as his wife; he forewent the divorce and finalized the betrothal by marrying her.

The expression “took his wife” we must understand to mean as they married one another. It is interesting to note here that this passage makes it clear that one does not need to “consummate” a marriage in order to be married. Joseph and Mary were 100% married though Joseph did not know Mary (sexually) until after Jesus birth.

Vs. 25 – Joseph respected the situation. While the two were married, they did not have carnal knowledge of one another until after Jesus was born. The word “until” signifies that he did know her in this way after Jesus’ birth. This is a clear refutation of the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Again we find Joseph obedient to the heavenly messenger. He named Mary’s (and God’s) Son, Jesus as commanded.

In chapter we will see how Matthew answers the question of how Jesus fulfilled all prophecies concerning his locative origins and came to be of Nazareth.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Matthew 1:18-25 Birth

Should We Pray to Jesus?

Should We Pray to Jesus?

The question is raised: should we pray to Jesus?

Should We Pray to Jesus?

Should We Pray to Jesus?

Perhaps the better way to praise the question is: does a Christian have Biblical authority to pray to Jesus.

Those who would answer in the negative on this question often base their position on the the Lord’s model prayer, in which He told His followers, “When you pray, pray thusly: Our Father in Heaven…” (Matthew 6:9). Similarly, Peter notes that his readers call on the Father (1 Peter 1:17). Clearly, prayer to the Father is authorized and expected of the saints. The question is whether this authorization precludes prayer to God, the Son.

Before going further, let us make two observations which should not be controversial for those who believe the Scriptures. The first is that, as the Lord taught, the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). All scripture is given by inspiration of God, all Scripture is true, all Scripture is profitable, and all Scripture is authoritative (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16). As the Proverbs note, every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5). A derivative of this principle is that the Scriptures, being absolutely true, cannot contradict themselves.

The second observation is a logical extension of the first. When our interpretation or application of one Scripture contradicts other Scripture, or is contradicted by that Scripture, then our interpretation is false. When we find ourselves in such a situation, the humble servant of God acknowledges his error and seeks to correct his interpretation.

Concerning prayers to Jesus, in order to establish authority, we need that which is required for all authorized practices: commands, approved examples or a binding necessary inference. Specifically, we need either direct commands to pray to Jesus, divinely approved examples of men who prayed to Jesus, or else, a passage which infers, of necessity, that prayer to Jesus is permissible.

If we examine the New Testament, it is rather easy to find apostolic examples of prayers to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let’s look at two. The first is found in 2 Corinthians 12:8. The apostle Paul recounts to the Corinthians concerning a thorn in the flesh, and then says concerning the thorn that three times he pleaded with the Lord to remove it. The context of the passage, verses 9 and 10 in particular, wherein Jesus replies to Paul,show that the person to whom Paul was praying was none other than Jesus. Thus, we have a clear example, provided in an inspired book, that the apostle Paul prayed to Jesus, not once, but three times, and Jesus, rather than rebuking the apostle for doing so, instead replied and explained why He was not going to fulfill the request.

The second example is found at the end of Revelation. There as the apostle John is closing out the last book of the Bible, he ends with a prayer, “Come Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20) Now, its not a long prayer, but it’s still a prayer. It is a direct request from a man on earth, to the Savior in heaven, asking Jesus to return to earth and claim the final victory.

With two or three witnesses, God establishes a principle or a truth, and here we have two obvious apostolic examples of inspired men who prayed to Jesus, and were directed by the Holy Spirit to record the behavior for our benefit.

When a passage of Scripture contradicts an interpretation of Scripture, we should, in humility re-examine our interpretation. Those who would say there is no authority for such prayers must accuse the apostles of wrongdoing.

It seems likely that sometimes people try to over-distinguish between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. While clearly there is a delineation of roles between the Father and the Son, Jesus said, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me,” (John 14:11) and said concerning prayer, “whatever you ask in My name, that I will do,” (John 14:13), clearly putting Himself in the position of answering prayers.

Jesus is God (cf. John 1:3; Hebrews 1:1-3). He is not God the Father, but He is fully divine. He sits on high on the throne of God (cf. Hebrews 12:2; Revelation 3:21), and, as the Creator of all things (cf. Colossians 1:16), the Judge of all men (cf. Matthew 25:31-32; Acts 17:31), and the King of Kings (1 Timothy 6:15), He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). He is almighty God, and, seeing as how He is not on earth, if you want to communicate with Christ, the only avenue open to you is prayer.

But what about Jesus’ clear teaching to pray to the Father?

Let us note a couple of things about that. Firstly, the apostles prayed to God the Father. We have clear examples of them doing so, and the Scriptures tell us we should call on the Father. No man should stop praying to the Father. Jesus certainly encouraged us to do so, and to do so often.

But a principle can be binding without being exclusive.

The model prayer, which Jesus taught His disciples is not an exclusive prayer which of itself forbids all other prayers not molded in the exact same image. Rather it is an outline of a potential prayer, and a very good prayer at that, which covers many of the things we should pray about. But there are other prayers in the New Testament which do not follow the exact same pattern. Jesus’ prayer in the garden for instance, was quite a different prayer (Matthew 26:39). As was His prayer recorded in John 17. Jesus obviously did not always structure prayer after the one model prayer He provided. Likewise, we see the apostles praying for boldness to speak, a thing not directly addressed in the model prayer (Acts 4:23-30). And Paul writes to Timothy and tells him that Christians should pray for their leaders and those in authority; another subject not addressed in the model prayer (1 Timothy 2:2).

Clearly the model prayer is not an exclusive prayer, forbidding any prayers that depart from its pattern. And we should not treat it as such.

It is wrong to add to God’s word. It is also wrong to take away from God’s word, forbidding what God has allowed. Clearly, examples of prayers to the Father outweigh examples of prayers to the Son, and we have an obligation and a privilege towards such prayers. No one should forbid such prayers. Yet, at the same time, there is clear authority to pray to our Lord and Brother, and we should not seek to bind our interpretation on others when that interpretation is contradicted by inspired examples of men who did the very thing we are teaching against, and were approved in doing so.

by Jonathan McAnulty

Posted in Jonathan McAnulty | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Should We Pray to Jesus?

Ant Article

Ant Article

Several weeks ago when the weather turned a bit wetter, we suddenly developed a somewhat sizeable, in-house ant problem. A couple of places were soon ‘crawling’ with them. It was at that point that we learned about these little ‘killer’ liquid ant baits. The way they work, is that the sickly sweet liquid draws the worker ants, who then take some of the slow-working poison back to the nest, laying down a pheromone trail as they come and go, so that other worker ants will then follow the same trail to the bait and back, unwittingly helping to spread the sweet but deadly poison throughout their entire nest, before it eventually kills each one of them off individually, reportedly some 24-48 hours after their consumption of it.

The ant: Pest? Problem? Example?

The ant: Pest? Problem? Example?

And… it works! And how it works – and worked – was simply an amazing, and yet appalling and frightening thing to watch. The sickly-sweet liquid bait apparently appeals to the ants’ natural instincts and tendencies. After its being opened and placed, the unsuspecting ants quickly discovered it, indulged in it, and set up a two-way, ‘super highway’ to and from it. Wide was the path that led to their destruction and many were they that found and enjoyed it for a few fleeting moments! We sought not to disturb their ‘path’ – ological indulgence, but to do whatever we could to promote it – such as systematically stepping over their little parade of poison-bearing brethren, instead of squashing all of them we saw marching lock-step back and forth each time we crossed or came near it. After all, we wanted them completely annihilated and this was a devastatingly effective and easy way to accomplish exactly that.

Perhaps it was because their digestive systems soon began self-destructing as the poison promised, but it wasn’t long before some of them started to die along the trail. Dead carcasses soon began dotting both the delivery route as well as piling up around the pool of poison they were passionately pilfering. It didn’t matter; the mindless and masochistic masses just marched right past them, crawled right over them, or in some cases (I’m told), probably even carried the poison-laced carcasses of their former co-workers back to the nest to cannibalistically consume, eventually likewise becoming victims of their own all-consuming appetites as they ingested the now infected and death-laced corpses theirs would subsequently now soon join.

Today, the trail to the bait is pretty much abandoned. Occasionally some straggler that escaped the deadly swath of destructive indulgence will still make its way to the pit of poison, push past the few pitiful corpses that still remain either perched on the edge or piled up inside of the plastic poison pit packaging, partake of and bask in the momentary sweetness of the bait, and then seek to return and share the decadently deadly but deceptively well-masked discovery with whatever few ant-family members might still remain alive at the nest – at least for the moment.

As I considered this all-consuming trail of tragedy (my wife said at one point that she actually felt sorry for them), I could not help but sadly consider some of the parallels between the ants’ destruction, and some people when it comes to their all-consuming and driving desire to indulge in death-dealing but incredibly, deceptively, well-masked and sickly sweet sin. Satan – who wants to see all of us painfully destroyed simply because we are the handiwork and creation of almighty God whom he hates with all his heart – systematically sets out the sickly sweet but ultimately deadly bait of sin before our eyes constantly (Rom. 6:23). He tempts us hundreds of times a day to indulge in, or partake of, some sinful action that he advertises as so sweet at the time (Gen. 3:1-6; Prov. 9:13-18), but is nothing more in reality, than thinly-disguised death and destruction waiting to happen, deceptively designed to destroy us slowly (Jms. 1:12-16; 1 Jn. 2:15-17). Worldly and ungodly “worker ant” types proudly parade and perpetually present their prideful prize-packages of poisonous and perverted indulgences, seeking to implant them ever deeper into our families’ hearts, minds, souls and living rooms, through radio, television, and internet portals into our little family “nests,” thus incrementally infecting and infesting both ourselves and our family with their seductively sinful, deceptively deadly, and soul-destructive poison – so sweetly and completely disguised as something good and acceptable (Isa. 5:20)!

And although some folks can clearly see the unavoidable swath of death and destruction such sinful indulgences cause (they themselves having been hurt or affected in some way already by sinful indulgences resulting in broken lives, broken homes, and broken hearts), they go right along with them, join in lemming-like lockstep, and get caught up in and swept along in the same poison parade of perversion as well (Prov. 14:12)! And Satan certainly doesn’t bother them – in fact, he seems at times to go out of his way to not disturb their little death march (Ps. 73:3-12). But oh, what an agonizing end those who perpetually and impenitently indulge in such sin – and are also responsible for supporting and spreading it around – are in for according to God’s word (Prov. 6:12-19; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:17-5:17; Col. 3:5-11; Rev. 21:7-8).

But just imagine with me for a moment… what if there was a way out? What if there was a way of escape? What if, a much more highly intelligent life form with an infinitely superior understanding to that of the ant, could somehow become one; teach them how to read the warning label on the death-dealing substance; and get them to look at life from a higher perspective than simply, fatally following their deadly instincts and desires? How many other ants do you think would listen and seek to exit the wide and easy pheromone avenue of annihilation? Would you if you were an ant? Or would you just continue to carry on, indulge your desire, parade your poison, and share and shower its deadly influence with and upon anyone who would listen?

Because the above described scenario is very similar to what our loving, eternal, and almighty God, Creator, and Father in heaven did for humanity when He sent His one and only begotten Son, Truth Incarnate, the Word become flesh to earth, to dwell among us and teach us godly wisdom when it comes to how to avoid sin and escape destruction (See Jn. 1:1-17; Matt. 7:21-27; also Phil. 2:5-8; 1 Jn. 1:5-7).

How many are truly willing to really listen and change direction? Or, will they just keep indulging in and supporting the spread of such sinful poison as Satan is passionately and consistently seeking to systematically shove down all our souls? How many lives has one got to see bruised, busted, broken and buried by sin before they realize that God’s way is the only way to life? Or, will they blindly continue to behave like some of the health care professionals who daily have to deal with and experience the emphysematic end of so many individuals who die a slow and painful death struggling for every last breath… and then methodically and masochistically make their way to the outside picnic table and smoking area to light up again themselves… as they stand, and watch, and maybe even seek to squash, the little parade of ants methodically making their way across the sidewalk to the sweetly-beckoning soda cup some other worker left behind?

 

Posted in Doug Dingley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Ant Article

Matthew 1:1-17 – The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Matthew Introduction and 1:1-17

Who wrote the book? The apostle Matthew, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is almost universally acknowledged, historically, to have written the book. While the book doesn’t specifically say who wrote it, there can be no reasonable doubt that Matthew was its penman.

Matthew 1 contains the geneology of Christ.

Matthew 1 contains the geneology of Christ.

When was the book written? There is much debate on this question and on this question of all of the gospel accounts. Some say as early as 38 A.D., while others suggest a much later date, 70 A.D.. The question is not likely to be settled soon. Conservative scholars generally believe that Matthew was one of the first accounts of the gospel written and that would agree with the content. Since the gospel was extended first to the Jewish people (Romans 1:16), it would stand to reason that written accounts of the life of Jesus would naturally follow that order.

Where was the book written? This is also unknown. Tradition states it was written in Rome, however, that would seem to be out of character with those to whom it was addressed. Somewhere in Palestine would be more in harmony with its character. If it was written early, then this would most likely be the place; if late, then some other location.

Why and to whom was the book written? To provide for the Jewish Christian an account of the life of Christ. The book of Matthew tells the story of the King and His kingdom. More than any other book of the New Testament, Matthew makes reference to the coming kingdom of the Christ. The genealogical record at the beginning of the book establishes Jesus’ earthly royal blood line and the story of His birth establishes His heavenly royalty. As Matthew guides us through the life of Jesus he points out more than any other author the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. In this regard, Matthew has a distinct Jewish flavor. Tradition states that Matthew was written in Hebrew originally, but this lacks textual support.

Matthew 1:1-17 – Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Vs. 1 – Matthew begins with a summary of the genealogical record. Jesus is the son of David and Abraham. Here, Jesus is linked both to God’s promises to Abraham and to the royal line of David. The prophecies that Matthew so often cite show that Jesus indeed fulfilled the promise made to Abraham that all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). Matthew also intends to show that Jesus was truly of royal lineage and worthy of the title placed over the cross, “the King of the Jews.” Like Peter on the day of Pentecost, Matthew seeks to convict the Jewish mind of crucifying their Messiah and thus sinning against God. If he can accomplish this, then, like those in Acts 2, they will cry out “what must we do.”

Vss. 2-6 – The first section of genealogy takes us from Abraham to David. Matthew doesn’t merely mention the genealogy proper. He reminds us of some key women that were involved in the seed-line. Mention is made of Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth directly, and to Bathsheba indirectly.

Why mention these women? Some have suggested that it was due to the fact that Mary’s pregnancy was suspect. Such argue that Joseph himself had doubts (Matthew 1:19). However, Matthew explains clearly what the circumstances were and that Joseph’s conscience was assuaged by the angel’s revelation. Hence, why would Matthew need further explanation by appealing (albeit, indirectly) to sordid circumstances of the past?

It seems more likely that Matthew was seeking to break down prejudicial Jewish assumptions regarding societal norms, particularly in regard to women. Christianity had success among them in places (Acts 16:13). And Christianity has always sought to elevate woman to her proper place as God’s creation. The men of the day saw women as chattel to be married and divorced as they pleased. Jesus’ message of the gospel, however, recognized their value and brought them to a place of equality among men (Galatians 3:28).

The mention of these women also assured the reader that, while one might commit terrible sins in one’s life, that there was forgiveness and inclusion for the penitent. Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba were all guilty of sexual sins. Many of the women mentioned in the gospel were also so guilty. In Jesus, however, we find, upon repentance, a willingness to forgive and accept those whom society has completely written off.

Finally, that these women were involved in some way with gentiles also seems to be part of Matthew’s object. The gospel was to the Jews first, but also to the gentiles (Romans 1:16). Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (the wife of Uriah, he says) all had intimate dealings with gentile people. The gospel isn’t merely for the pure-blood Jew and Matthew reminds us that the pure-blood Jew wasn’t so “pure.” It is from these three thoughts that we conclude that Matthew’s purpose in mentioning these women appears to be an effort at breaking down prejudicial walls that would prevent a Jewish person from believing and accepting the gospel.

Vss. 7-11 – Matthew enumerates the kings of Israel both good and wicked. Without going into detail regarding their lives, the Jewish mind would have been reminded of Hezekiah and Josiah as reformers and perhaps thought of Jesus in a similar vein. Verse 11 ends with Babylonian captivity, another reminder of Israel’s sinful past.

Vss. 12-17 – Of course when Matthew gets to Joseph, he makes it clear that he was the husband of Mary and that it was of her that Jesus was born lest anyone should get the mistaken impression that Joseph sired Jesus.

The use of the number “fourteen” in verse 17 doesn’t appear to have any particular significance. This may have merely been a memory aid for the Jewish Christian who sought to present Jesus’ case to other Jews by virtue of the genealogy. The discussion of genealogy among the Jews was evidently a popular enough activity that Paul had to warn Titus and Timothy against getting bogged down into such matters (1 Timothy 1:4, Titus 3:9). The genealogy Matthew uses here serves to overcome a hurdle in the Jewish mind. That hurdle having been overcome, Matthew proceeds to the story of Jesus birth.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Matthew 1:1-17 – The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

¡Huya de la Nueva Versión Internacional! NVI!

¡Huya de la Nueva Versión Internacional!

¡Huya de la Nueva Versión Internacional!

¡Huya de la Nueva Versión Internacional!

En asuntos de fe la Biblia es siempre nuestra guía perfecta, y sin duda alguna lo será siempre. No existe duda alguna que la inspiración de la misma procede de Dios (2Ped 1:20-23).  No existe ningún error en la Biblia, ni tampoco contradicción alguna, pero las diferentes versiones de la misma pueden implicar error humano dependiendo de la interpretación que le dé cada traductor a su versión. Esto estimados amigos es de trascendental importancia ya que hay muchos que no logran establecer la diferencia. Le rogamos que no se alarme, ya que no estamos tratando de la Biblia en sí o su inspiración de las traducciones y en este caso con especial énfasis; la nueva versión internacional(NVI).

Wikipedia revela que los responsables literarios de esta versión son desconocidos en su mayoría pero que si registra a un grupo de Latinoamericanos evangélicos, como los autores y que la publicación está a cargo de la editorial Bíblica o la “ex-sociedad Bíblica internacional”.

  La Biblia en su original griego contiene y preserva toda la pureza con la que Dios pretendió que fuera, de ahí radica la importancia de poder aprender Griego y al menos manejar lo básico para verificar con el original. En el mundo existen muchísimos manuscritos pero de ellos 5 son los de mayor importancia ya que sus fechas los acercan más al siglo primero, fechados entre siglo IV y V y el hecho de ser unciales o códices les da el respeto debido a ser autoridad en estos asuntos. Estos manuscritos son: Sinaítico, Alejandrino, Vaticano, el manuscrito palimpsesto de Efraim y el código de Bezae. Entre más de 200 leccionarios (como sermones utilizados por los que fueron discípulos de los apóstoles o “Padres de la fe” para enseñar a la iglesia poco después del cierre del siglo I). Sin lugar a dudas las muchas fuentes existentes proveen una importante variedad de corroboración a los textos originales. Dios espera que podamos ser críticos y por tal motivo nos ha dado una basta cantidad de material para examinar y concluir lógica y correctamente. El asunto si nosotros lo hacemos o NO, no es ni constituye una falta de Dios. Cada persona en este planeta puede aprender griego, puede indagar y profundizar en la extensa variedad que tenemos, para comprobar pero solo si tal persona quiere y se lo propone. A continuación analizaremos una lista de versículos encontrados en la NVI y compararemos con otras versiones para sacar nuestras propias conclusiones de los hechos.

  • Mateo 6:13 “Y no nos dejes caer en tentación, sino líbranos del maligno”.       Suprime el final de la oración de Jesús, tuyo es el reino y el poder y la gloria por todos los siglos. Sabemos que el premilenialismo no cree que el reino ya ha sido establecido por Cristo. La Biblia enseña que sí (Dn 2:44; Col 1:13).
  • Apocalipsis 1:11 “Escribe en un libro lo que veas y envíalo a las siete iglesias: a Éfeso, a Esmirna, a Pérgamo, a Tiatíra, a Sardis, a Filadelfia y a Laodicea”. Quita la referencia a Cristo mismo: Yo soy el alfa y la omega el primero y el último. El gnosticismo siempre ha negado la deidad de Cristo desde tiempos del apóstol Juan y hasta nuestra actualidad.
  • 2 Tesalonisenses 1:9 “Ellos sufrirán el castigo de la destrucción eterna, lejos de la presencia del Señor y de la majestad de su poder”. Suplanta “perdición” por “destrucción”. Obviamente no es lo mismo, la Biblia pone especial énfasis a que el castigo será eterno, es decir no tendrá fin (Marcos 9:48). Los Testigos de Jehová y los adventistas han enseñado con mucho entusiasmo la falsa doctrina de que cuando el hombre muere, ese es el fin y que el castigo del que habla Dios es la “aniquilación”, doctrina a la que la Biblia da la espalda.
  • Lucas 4:4“Jesús le respondió: —Escrito está: “No sólo de pan vive el hombre”. Hasta aquellos que no son tan buenos estudiantes de la Biblia saben que este versículo no termina ahí, “sino de toda palabra que sale de la boca de Dios” precisamente esta frase omitida es un error gravísimo ya que Cristo está citando textualmente  Deut 8:3.
  • Hechos 28:29 La nueva versión Internacional elimina por completo este versículo  donde dice: “Los judíos salieron teniendo entre sí gran contienda”. Está sumamente sospechosa esta eliminación ya que a simple vista parece que los traductores de la NVI no quisieron herir susceptibilidades en sus tendencias ecuménicas. El pasaje ni siquiera es uno de la lista de críticas textuales, por tanto no hay razones fuertes para no incluirlo.
  • Hechos 4:24 “Cuando lo oyeron, alzaron unánimes la voz en oración a Dios: «Soberano Señor, creador del cielo y de la tierra, del mar y de todo lo que hay en ellos”  Omite “tú eres el Dios” , algo muy parecido a la traducción del nuevo mundo de los testigos de Jehová. Cada vez que se llega a un pasaje que tiene que ver con la naturaleza divina de Cristo, los enredos y nubes de humo encierran al pasaje. La Biblia establece muy bien tanto en el griego, refiriendo a Jesus como Dios (Teos) así como en español más toda la evidencia del A.T (Isaías 7:14).
  • Hechos 8:36-37 “Mientras iban por el camino, llegaron a un lugar donde había agua, y dijo el eunuco: —Mire usted, aquí hay agua. ¿Qué impide que yo sea bautizado?”– Omite el versículo 37, y quita la declaración: “Creo que Jesucristo es el hijo de Dios”. Sabemos que para los evangélicos, basta la experiencia de fe para obtener la salvación, aunque se comete ese error aquí, Dios ha provisto una larga y tendida lista tanto en el A.T como las poco más de 80 veces en el Nuevo, de la necesidad de bautismo y la declaración de fe que procede al mismo ( 1Pedro 3:18-20; Hechos 2:38, Marcos 16:16).
  • Hechos 9:6  “Levántate y entra en la ciudad, que allí se te dirá lo que tienes que hacer”. -Quita el reconocimiento del apóstol Pablo a Jesús como Señor: “Señor ¿que quieres que yo haga?
  • Apocalipsis 21:24 “Las naciones caminarán a la luz de la ciudad, y los reyes de la tierra le entregarán sus espléndidas riquezas”. Omite la frase: “que hubieren sido salvas y suplanta la fuente de la luz, “porque la gloria de Dios la ilumina, y el Cordero es su lumbrera. (vs, 23 ). 
  • 1 Corintios 6:9,  la NVI usa la frase“homosexualidad” en lugar de “afeminados” o “sodomitas” para decir que “Dios solamente condenó los actos criminales de los heterosexuales, pero no el homosexualismo en sí. Por otro lado sobre este mismo tema note por favor En Deuteronomio 23:17, 1 Reyes 15:12, 22:46 y 2 Reyes 23:7 la frase “prostitutas del templo” son usadas en lugar de “sodomitas”. O sea, que la NVI es la “Biblia” preferida de los homosexuales por sobre estos versículos
  • Juan 14:13 “Todo lo que me pidiereis ,yo lo haré..”. El pasaje manipulado aquí contradice la enseñanza de la Biblia sobre la oración que debe únicamente ser dirigida al Padre(Efe 5:20, Rom 15:30) a travez de Jesús y no ha Jesús mismo. De hecho estaría en contra de las declaraciones del Señor en Mateo 6:9 cuando dice: “Padre nuestro que estás en los cielos”. Hacer lo contrario sería una clara violación a la lógica.

Permítame concluir estableciendo el hecho sencillo que aún con esta versión de la Biblia tan mal traducida, el hombre puede aprender quién es Dios y que quiere que el hombre haga para llegar a ser salvo. Realmente la palabra de Dios es tan poderosa que incluso la versión de los testigos de Jehová puede ser útil para que cualquiera entienda las más importantes verdades. Pero en la era en la que vivimos, con tanto acceso y avance tecnológico, cualquier persona puede tener acceso a diferentes versiones de la Biblia, así que después de la evidencia antes mencionada, mejor ¡Huya de la nueva versión internacional!. Existen muchas otras versiones más acertadas tales, como la Biblia textual, la Biblia de las Américas, entre otras las que usted puede obtener por bajo costo. Esperamos aya sido de ayuda para usted amado lector el material antes presentado.

Posted in Heiner Montealto | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ¡Huya de la Nueva Versión Internacional! NVI!