Matthew chapter 3

Matthew 3: 1-12 introduces John the Baptist.
The comming of John the Baptist / Baptiser / Forerunner / Precourser was foretold in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1.

The Passage begins with a summary of John's message "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
Lets take a quick look at what is actually being said here.
Repent: The word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word metanoia, meaning "after/behind one's mind", which is a compound word of the preposition 'meta' (after, with), and the verb 'noeo' (to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing), so the whole compound means: 'to think differently after'. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former thought; a change of mind accompanied by regret and change of conduct. Repentance then is not simply a guilt or regret, but it is accompanied by action. The willful turning away from sin, whether a wrong action or thought pattern, but more importantly turning toward righteousness and Jesus.

John’s purpose was to prepare hearts for the Messiah, and to bring an awareness of sin among Israel so they could received the salvation from sin offered by Jesus. We can sometimes fail to appreciate how important the preparing work of the Lord is. Any great work of God begins with great preparation. Even the harvest of His saving Grace is sown first so that it may be reaped later.

John's location, clothing and diet suggest a radical servant of God whose lifestyle challenges the decedant values of our society. John sacrificed all material wealth to do the work God had set out for him. He lived in the desert, ate bugs and wild honey, and wore hides rather than spun and tailored clothing. Still crowds gathered, as John's message was the message of God, get ready the Messiah is comming!

John's "repentance" when coupled with the act of water baptizm, refers not only to a regular turning from sin after a specific act. It also refers to a once-for-all repentance, the kind of turning from an old way of life to a new that Judaism associated with Gentiles converting to Judaism. Significantly, John was treating the Jewish people as if they were Gentiles, calling them to turn to God on the same terms they believed God demanded of Gentiles through baptism. This is a simbol that although they bear a special heritage from Abraham Jews and Gentiles are in the same position regarding salvation, to be saved we all need Jesus.

John's confrontation with the Pharisees and Sadducees also brings up another very important topic. The production of 'fruit'. Galatians 5: 22-23 tells us that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." John then tells us that "every tree that does not produce fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

Does this suggest that a christian (tree) can lose their salvation if they do not produce enough friut? I don't think it does, but I sure don't want to risk it either.

Verse 11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." indicates the once-and-for-all type of repentance John refers to and signifies that it is a symbol of our obediance to God and our repentance. The baptism Jesus offers however is not a physical one but is spiritual and is much more powerful than water baptism. This also suggests that Spiritual baptism / Salvation as also a once-and-for-all occurance for each believer.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit promised with the New Covenant (Ezekiel 37:14). To baptize with fire means to bring the fires of judgment, which will purify the righteous, but destroy the wicked.

Verses 13-15 show John recognising Jesus as the Messiah who will baptise with the "Holy Spirit and with fire." John is immediately humble, in spite of having baptised many people, and having crowds come to see him. He also obeys Jesus even though John knows himself not to be worthy of the task.

We get to see the the whole of the Trinity all at once in verses 16-17, when the "Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

God the Father - The voice from heaven.
God the Son - Jesus.
God the Spirit - Holy Spirit like a dove. Even if this is a poetic image it signifies a physically noticable change.

Why did Jesus need to be baptized?
Firstly it was as Jesus said "to fullfil all righteousness", but also Jesus demonstrated His submission to God by doing the act of repentence. Although Jesus had nothing to repent of, as He was without sin, He demonstrated to us the importance of water baptism, as an act of obedience and a symbol of a beleiver's repentance.
Signifcantly this was also the moment when the Spirit of God filled Jesus, and this signified the beginning of His ministry.

Why is it important that Mary is Jesus mother?

I know I am getting sidetracked already but I felt that a response was needed to a comment made by Puritan Belief in response to my last post about Matthew chapter 1.

I also felt that responding as a new post would allow the length and structure needed.

So why is it important that Mary is Jesus mother?

Firstly we must look at Jesus as the Son of David.
Several places in scripture refer to Jesus as the Son of David (Matt 1:1, 9:27, 20:30, Mark 10:47, 12:35, Luke 18:38 and Luke 20:41) The word son here does not mean literal son but is a term used to identify a descendant. For example, in this context, I could be considered the son of my great-grandfather. Even though he is not actually my father.

Luke 20:41 questions the place of Jesus as a son of David so I will address that separately, after the others.

It is important that Jesus is a direct descendant of David because it was prophesied that the messiah would be from the royal line of David. (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalm 89:3-4; Psalm 132:11; Isaiah 9:6-7) Thus it follows that if Jesus is not a descendant of David then Jesus can't be the messiah as He doesn't fit all the requirements. Jesus however, is the Messiah so therefore He MUST be a direct-blood descendant of David.
BUT the genealogy found in Matthew has a problem if it is to prove Jesus to be the Messiah through line of David, namely Jeconiah. The problem with this guy is found in Jeremiah 22:30.

This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

D'oh! God had committed himself to producing the Messiah though the line of David but later also cursed the line of David from which Joseph, Jesus' father descends. Sounds like a catch 22, God shot himself in the foot there. Now if the Messiah is from the line of Jechoniah then God is a liar but if Jesus is not from the line of David He is a liar too.

Enter the significance of Mary.
The genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3: 23-38 is different to the one found in Matthew 1: 1-17. Luke includes the line from Adam to Abraham, then they are the same until David, Matthew goes through Solomon, David's first son of Bathsheba, while Luke goes through Nathan, David's second son of Bathsheba. So Matthew went through the first surviving son, Solomon, through Rehoboam and onto Jechoniah, the subject of God's blood curse from Jeremiah 22:30. It finally ends with Joseph, who is the LEGAL father of Jesus but not the Blood father, Jesus was born from a Virgin Birth. The curse was on the blood line of Jechonia, Joseph's ancestor, but Jesus is not of the bloodline of his adoptive father Joseph.

When Luke gets to David though he follows the blood line of his second son the Bathsheba, Nathan and on through Heli who was the father of Mary and the father-in-law of Joseph. When Luke (3:23) refers to Heli as the father of Joseph he uses the Greek word nomizo which means "reckoned as by law" indicating Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph not his actual father. Thus this genealogy is of Mary not Joseph, the Virgin birth, placing Jesus in the blood-line of David through his mother Mary, back to Nathan, David's son keeps the messiah in the royal blood line of David but bypasses the curse on Jechoniah's line.

Also in the Garden of Eden, once God discovers Adam and Eve after the infamous fruit incident He prophesies that Jesus will come from a Virgin birth and be the offspring or seed of the woman. Odd considering children are considered the offspring of their fathers. This prophesy is evidence that while not from the bloodline of Joseph, and being divinely conceived Jesus was still human as He is of the "seed of the woman".

Why is Jesus' Humanity important?
Well if Jesus was not human then why is it important that He was sinless? If Jesus was not human it is nothing special that He was without sin as becomes then a being incapable of sin. Jesus was and is sinless but that does not mean He was incapable of sin. The devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, meaning that Jesus struggled with the temptations. He did not fail, but provided an example that through Him we too can overcome temptations the devil throws our way. It is important that Jesus was Human because He died. This is the basis for a Christian's salvation, the fact the Jesus dies for our sin. If Jesus was not human, and was solely the immortal, neverending God how could he die? How could he then conquer death and pay the wages of our sin? Jesus could do these things as He is BOTH human and divine, a little hard to understand, but God is bigger than our understanding sometimes.

Jesus was both human and divine, don't get me wrong, but His humanity is as vital to our salvation as His divinity. Jesus is only human through the fact that he is the seed of Mary, her son.

Now back to Luke 20:41-44 This passage question Jesus' sonship to David by noting a short controversy between Jesus and the leadership. Previous attempts to stump him had failed, but now Jesus will silence his opponents with a question about the most important figure in Jewish promise, the Son of David, Messiah. It is Jesus' turn to ask a question and seek answers. How will the leadership fare in the hot seat? Jesus raises a rabbinic antinomy. The question is asked both before and after a quotation of Psalm 110:1. "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms, `The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ‘David calls him `Lord.' How then can he be his son?" Jesus' goal is not to deny either premise but to show a relationship between two concepts that otherwise might appear to be in tension. In effect, Jesus is saying, more important than Jesus being David's son is that he is David's Lord. Or to answer Jesus' final question: that he is David's son is less significant (as significant as this is) than that he is David's Lord. Davidic sonship is not being denied; in fact, Davidic sonship is an important concept (Luke 1:31-35; Acts 13:23-39; Rom 1:2-4). Rather, the point is Messiah's authority, and thus by implication Jesus' exalted position.

Matthew chapter 2

Matthew 2:1-12 tells about the visit of the Magi, who came from the East to see the 'King of the Jews'.
This is very significant for a few reasons:

1. The Magi were Gentiles, not only that but were practicers of divination, interpreters of dreams, the magicians and advisors to the Persian court. The fact that they are the first mentioned in Matthew to visit and worship Jesus shows that the Messiah is not solely for the Jewish people. "He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (Daliel 7:14) At this point the worship they offered could have simply been the usual honor a King's Heir would recieve, as was the custom of the time to send a delegation with gifts to the heirs of neighbouring nations. I believe these Magi saw the Glory of God and worshiped Jesus in ernest as the one, true, living God incarnate.
2. It shows the current 'king of the Jews', Herod, to be in stark contrast to what we will learn the true King of the Jews, Jesus, is like. Herod is calculating, and sinister is his plans, to kill an infant in order to protect his own position.
3. verses 4-6 show that the Jews knew where the Messiah was to be born but were not looking for Him. It also shows that by Jesus being born in Bethlehem He fulfills yet another Messianic prophesey, this time from Micah 5:2 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'
4. The Magi finally find Jesus after following the star (Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years), they then worship Him and offer Him the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. I believe that once the Magi saw Jesus they saw the Glory of God and worshiped Jesus in ernest, as the one, true, living God incarnate. Not simply as the heir to a neighbouring throne. I form this opinion from the prophet Daniel having once been the head of the Magi, the fact that they saw Jesus with the intention of honoring Him, and the warning God gave them later, not to go back to Herod shows that God may have favoured them, as He certainly protected them.
5. The gifts were significant as well. Frankincense and Myrrh are both resins, dried tree sap, from trees which are common to Somalia. Frankincense was mainly used in making purfumes and incense for aromatherapy. It was also lavishly used in religious rites. Myrrh was used as an embalming ointment and was used, up until about the 15th century, as a penitential incense in funerals and cremations. These gifts are symbols of both His status as King of Kings (although He is not a King as the world would see it) as well as the purpose of Jesus' birth, so He could die for us.

Matthew 2: 13-18 tells of Joseph being warned about Herods plan to kill Jesus and then Joseph and his young family fleeing to Egypt. Three main points can be found in this passage.

1. The dramatic persecution of Jesus while still only a baby. While it is not unheard of in history for a ruler to murder challengers to their position, the wholesale slaughter of a generation of children is pretty extreme. Again a strong contrast between the current ruler and the Messiah who came humbly, and with the heart of servant.
2. Another messianic prophesey is fulfilled by Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt of all places as it was written in Hosea 11:1 that God said "Out of Egypt I called my Son." Although this prophesey also refers to the Israelites fleeing the bondage of slavery under Egypt, the prophesey was fulfilled in Christ.
3. Jeremiah 31:15 is also fulfilled in Herod's attack on a generation of children.

Matthew 2: 19-23 has the return of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Israel, and more specifically Nazereth. This also is the fulfulment of a messianic prophesey that "He will be called a Nazarene." At this early stage of Jesus life He has already fulfilled no less than 5 propheseys concerning the comming of the Messiah.

1. He is of the line of King David
2. He was of a Virgin Birth
3. He was born in Bethlehem
4. He fled to and then was called out of Egypt
5. He was to be called a Nazerene

All the signs were there for the Jews, Jesus fulfilled all the messianic propheseys, but they did not or could not see Jesus for who he was. Their Messiah they had waited so long for. This is the continuing theme of Matthew, that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Isn't it such a tragedy that years later Jesus, "As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." (Luke 19 :41-44)

Matthew chapter 1

Matthew is the first book of the New Testament and thus where I will begin...

Authorship:
Although there is no certain evidence that the book of Matthew was written by the apostle of the same name it is a popular, and not challenged assumption that it was. Jesus first meets, and calls Matthew in Matthew 9:9-13. This is a beautiful scene where Jesus is walking by a tax collector's booth, where Matthew is the tax collector, and simply says "Follow me" to which Matthew responds by simply dropping what he doing and got up and followed Christ from that day onwards. Mark and Luke call him 'Levi', which may have been his birth name, in which case Matthew would be the name Jesus gave him, as he had given Simon the name Peter. The name Matthew actually means 'God's gift' which I think is awesome. A Tax collector, one of the lowliest professions of the time, given the chance to be an apostle of Jesus and from then on is called 'God's gift'.

Chapter 1:
Matthew 1:1-17 gives the lineage of Jesus as a descendant of Abraham and, more specifically, David. This lineage is important, as well as being a logical place to start, for two main reasons.

1. Family records are very important to Jews, they are the evidence by which one claims to be a Jew. Only if you can trace your ancestory back to Abraham can you be concidered Jewish, as from Abraham a nation was created. The Messiah was to come from through Abraham, (Genesis 12:3 & Genesis 22:18) and more specifically David (2 Samuel 7:12, Psalm 132:11). Thus, unless Jesus is a son (son here simply means decendant) of David, and a son of Abraham, he is not the Messiah. Now this is here, proven from public records, that Jesus was in fact both a 'son of Abrham' and a 'son of David'.
2. The usual practice of a Jewish genealogy is to only list the men ie, from father to son to grandson etc. However there are 5 women listed here. Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba (mentioned as the wife of Uriah) and Mary. Mary is significant as Jesus was a divine conception and the mention of His mother allows Him to be Human as well as divine. He was still the 'legal' son of Joseph but Joseph was not his biological father, Jesus is the son of God. The other four women have special significance also. Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba were all gentiles. Although Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the salvation His blood and Grace provides is not only for Jews, but for "whoever believes in Him". Three of the women were also guilty pretty big sins, Tamar had sex with her father-in-law, which was a stoneable offence (Genesis 38). Rahab was a prostitute in Jericho (Joshua 2:1-7). Bathsheba had sex with David before she became his wife (2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12). This demonstrates that God can use people in his plans, even if they are pretty bad sinners.

Matthew 1: 18-25 gives a fairly straight foward account of the virgin birth. Yes a VIRGIN birth. This Virgin birth is vital if Jesus is the Messiah. Isaiah delivered a prophesy that "the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son." Thus the account here of the miraculous and divine conception of Jesus is another prophesey fulfilled concerning the Messiah's identity, Jesus.

Acting on Proverbs 25:2

Proverbs 25:2 says that "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter [but] to search out a matter is the glory of kings."
So in the spirit of this verse I am about to undertake probably the most difficult task I have to date. Though I have been a christian for most of my life (I am now 23) there are still bits of the New Teastament I have not read.
To remedy this, and so I can be on my way to making my 'One Trade' the bible, I am committing myself to a systematic look at the entire New Testament, from front to back. I expect that this will take me a long time so I may get sidetracked from time to time with other tid-bits of learning along the way. I will however try to limit these off task Blog entries to between books only.
I am not doing this in order to gain a 'kings glory' for myself, but rather to better understand the glory of God as it will be revealed to me through my study.

Where should I put my tent?

I came accross an article, Tabernacle Camp Emplacements: A Foreshadow Of The Cross which sparked my interest this morning and thought i would share it for those interested.

I do recomend reading the article but for those of you who would like the shortened version, here goes...

Upon examination of Numbers 2, one can notice that God gave very specific instructions for the arrangement of the Israelite camp. He told Judah, Issachar and Zebulun to camp east of the Tabernacle; Reuben, Simeon and Gad to the south; Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh to the west, and Dan, Asher and Naphtali to the north. The Levites stayed with the Tabernacle because it was their job to be Priests and caretakers of everything concerning the worship center. The Tabernacle, obviously, was the heart or the center of the camp.

Now when God gives a command it is usually accompanied by more than simple face value. This case is no different. The directions in which each tribe is to camp is specific, either East, South, West or North. Since the tabernacle was a rectangle we can assume that the areas occupied each of the 'four camps' were within the boundaries of the tabernacle. ie the 'southern camp' is not wider than the southern side of the tabernacle or else they would not be directly south.

When the populations are given they only include men of fighting age or older. ( if simple family calculations are made to include women and children they remain in the same proportions)

1. East: Judah, Issachar and Zebulun number 186 400 under the banner of the Lion.
2. South: Reuben, Simeon and Gad number 151 450 under the banner of the Man
3. West: Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh number 108 100 under the banner of the Ox.
4. North: Dan, Asher and Naphtali number157 600 under the banner of the Eagle.

When placed where they go they proportionally look a little like this, if facing the camp from the east and on a hill.

A CROSS is formed. Had men designed this a camp they most likely would have put in all the tents in a circle for more protection, just as the american explorers did with their wagon trains. However, this is an example of God's plan being made known from the begining. A cross with Him (the tabernacle) at the heart, as the only way to Him is through Him.

As it is said...

"The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed."

Does God Exist?

The following may be a true story, but until proven otherwise I will assume that it is useful only as a fictional anecdote. I like it none the less though.

A university professor challenged his students with this question. "Did
God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes, he
did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil
since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who
we are, then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an
answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the
students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question
professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been
cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man
replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of
physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every
body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and
heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero
(-460degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and
incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have
created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist
either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study,
but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light
into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You
cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of
darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is?
You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a
term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now
uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We
see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It
is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does
not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like
darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of
God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist
just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light." (A good explanation of evil/sin in he light of the Greek word rendered as
sin, Hamartia)

The professor sat down.

Who said this, which champion of the faith, which student of theology, or great preacher?

The young man from this story was none other than the incredible physicist, Albert Einstein.

Batman, The Incredible Hulk and Josheb-Basshebeth the Tahchemonite.

Being a guy, I love comicbook super-heroes, cartoon super-haroes, and just plain old super-heroes in general. I also am a huge fan of the heroic-fantasy genre of books and movies. As such, I get excited when reading or watching stories about heroes, I get even more excited about super-heroes who actually lived.

Josheb-Basshebeth (Josh) the Tahchemonite is one such real life super-hero.

His small but amazing account can be found in either 2 Samuel 23 or 1 Chronicles 11.

"Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter." - 2 Samuel 23:8

"Jashobeam, a Hacmonite, was chief of the officers ; he raised his spear against three hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter." - 1 Chronicles 11:11

Josh is someone not to be messed with, a real 'don't want to see in a dark alley' kind of guy! I realise that there are possibly alleged discrepancies, however, I like to think that the verses could be discussing two separate occasions where Josh defeated a multitude each time—on one occasion 300, and on another 800. (Now neither Batman nor The Incredible Hulk could have opened a can of whoop-ass that big)

Josh sounds like the kind of characters I read about and love in novels by David Gemmell, Raymond E Feist, or any other heroic-fantasy author for that matter. Big, Tough, and Really, really Angry.

Kinda puts Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." into a whole new and whopp-ass perspective.

If you stumble accross my little blog I'd love to hear about your historical heroes and why they are special to you.
They can be from the bible or other historical sources or can even be from myth, I like hearing about heroes no matter where they come from.

What's in a name anyway?

Many names have meanings so i did a little research and it turns out that both my kids have cool meanings to their names (found out only after they were named).

First name: Elliot = The Lord is God Middle name: Ray = Kingly or Worthy Protector.
So Elliot Ray means The Lord is God my King and Worthy Protector.

and

First name: Abigael = A father's joy Middle name: Mary = Bitter (ok so bitter isn't so cool).
So Abigael means A father's Joy.

This got me thinking about Biblical names and their meanings.
I remembered reading in Chuck Missler's Learn the Bible in 24 Hours about the lineage from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5.
when you sift through it all you get the line of fathers to sons...
Adam - Seth - Enosh - Kenan - Mahalal'el - Jared - Enoch - Methusaleh - Lamech - Noah.
On their own these names dont do much other than tell us the lieage of Noah, hoever when you look at the meanings of these Hebrew names, and their Englich translation, an interesting pattern emerges.

1. Adam (Adomah) = Man
2. Seth = Appointed
3. Enosh (from anash 'to be incurable') = Mortal, Frail, Miserable
4. Kenan = Sorrow
5. Mahalal'el (Mahalal 'Blessed' and El 'God') = The Blessed God
6. Jared (from the verb yaradh) = Shall come down
7. Enoch = Commencement or Teaching
8. Methusaleh = His death shall bring
9. Lamech (from which we get lament or lamentation) = Despairing
10. Noah (derived from nacham) = Comfort or Rest

Now the genealogy (Adam - Seth - Enosh - Kenan - Mahalal'el - Jared - Enoch - Methusaleh - Lamech - Noah) reads in English

"Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; [but] the blessed God shall come down teaching [that His] death shall bring [the] desparing comfort and rest."

Basically the story of Jesus! Isnt it awesome that God can reveal his truth even in places we might not think to look?
How can the Bible not be the word of God with details like this hidden within its pages?

If Socrates can't figure it out, what hope do I have?

"It may be that the Deity can forgive sins, but I do not see how."
- Socrates, to Plato, 500 B.C.

Even then the question of "how can a just God forgive the sins of men?" troubled the greatest minds.

This problem is still around today with many Christians and non-Christiansans alike, trying to earn theforgivenessess somehow. Living the best and most Christ-like lives they can, serving the poor, loving theneighbor'surs, keeping the ten Commandments etc. The result after all their efforts is a tired, wornout and frustrated people who know in their hearts that they will never be good enough. Trying in vain to save themselves through legalism.

Where then can any of us look in order to have our sins forgiven?

The answer can only be found through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his Grace.

The Gospel is...
not a code of ethics or morals;
not a creed to be accepted;
not a system of religion to be adhered to;
not even good advice to follow.
It is a message concerning a divine Person.

What the Gospel is can be clearly found in 1 Corinthians 4:3-4 that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures:"

1. It is important that Jesus "died for our sins according the scriptures" - both in referencence prophesies about the Messiah and also that sins needed blood in order to be forgiven.
2. It is important that Jesus "was buried" - in reference to baptism as a symbol of following Christ and dying to our own sinful nature.
3. It is important that Jesus "rose again on the third day according to the scriptures" - defeating death, so that we might have life.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) did the father say "My son has become good"? No! when his son returned he cried "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, andis found!"

Christ, our heavenly father did not come to make bad men good; but to give dead men
life! A dead man can't save himself no matter how much he may try.

And it is only by His Grace that Jesus did die for any of us.

G.R.A.C.E. (God's Riches At Christ's Expoence) - Hal Lindsey

The unmerited favour Jesus showed when he died for the sins of his people is amazing. We didn't and never will deserve His sacrifice but He gave His life for ours as the offering for our sin anyway. Romans 6:23 says that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." He paid the price for my sin so that i could come to know Him, and share in His eternal Life in heaven.

It is also interesting to note that the Dark Ages, a period in history from about (590 - 1500 A.D), occured during a time when the church lost sight of the light and truth of Gods Grace and fell into a system of legalism. The Dark Ages then ended at the same time the 95 Thesis by Martin Luther (1517) was written and the 'light' of God's Grace came back to the church.

What is Sin anyway?

If the only way i can get into Heaven is having my Sin forgiven, then I'd like to know what Sin is.

Generally we all know the difference between a little sin (lying, stealing, or swearing etc.) and a big sin (adultery, murder etc.) But there are degrees of those sins as well, stealing a car is worse than stealing a pack of gum. It's all just so confusing...

So what does the Bible say about it?

1 John 3:4 says "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."
The Law reffered to here is God's law and not the laws of states or scountries even thought Jesus did command us to obey the laws of where we live.

Romans 6:12-17 says "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey— whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

So Sin is something we are 'slaves to' and then can be 'set free' from, still not much more clear on exactly what Sin is.

Lets see if the Greeks can help us...

The primary Greek word rendered "sin" is "hamartia". This word was originally an archery term, literally being the degree by which an archer "missed the mark" or fell short of the target. The essential idea being conveyed by the use of this word, since a Christian's aim is to be Christlike and righteous, is that of "missing holiness"; thus "hamartia" means to sin; to depart from God's standard of holiness; to become unrighteous; to fail to live up to what God requires of us.

So Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God" is really a great explination of sin itself, as well as being an assessment of the human condition.
For all have Hamartia (missed the mark) and fallen short of the glory of God.