Foundations of Heaven & Earth (1 of 2)

Q. Isa 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens …
2 Sam 22:8 “Then the earth shook and quaked, The foundations of heaven were trembling and were shaken, because He was angry.
Does the Bible tell us what are the foundations of the earth and the foundations of heaven? Why heaven and heavens? (singular and plural)

A. It appears you’ve quoted the NIV for Isa 48:13 but the NASB for 2 Sam 22:8. For consistency I will use the more literal NASB throughout. The term “foundations of the earth” appears 7 times in the NASB, as follows:

• Ps 82:5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
• Prov 8:29 When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
• Isa 24:18 Then it will be that he who flees the report of disaster will fall into the pit, And he who climbs out of the pit will be caught in the snare; For the windows above are opened, and the foundations of the earth shake.
• Isa 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
• Isa 51:13 That you have forgotten the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens And laid the foundations of the earth, That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor?
• Jer 31:37 Thus says the LORD, “If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done,” declares the LORD.
• Micah 6:2 “Listen, you mountains, to the indictment of the LORD, And you enduring foundations of the earth, Because the LORD has a case against His people; Even with Israel He will dispute.

While you may be thinking of a literal, physical foundation, the Bible uses this term more figuratively:
• Ps 82:5 – In context God addresses kings & judges as “gods” who know & understand nothing. So the “foundations” or world order under their rule are shaken.
• Prov 8:29 – God’s work in creation is compared to the construction of a building. It is pictorial language.
• Isa 24:18 – The shaking of the foundations refers to earthquakes
• Isa 40:21 – “from the foundations of the earth” means “since the earth was founded” i.e. since the beginning of creation
• Isa 51:13 – Poetic description of God as Maker or Creator
• Jer 31:37 – A promise that God will not completely cast off Israel, similar to the Lord’s “it is easier for heaven & earth to pass away” in Lk 16:17
• Micah 6:2 – Here God is depicted as prosecutor bringing charges against Israel & calling inanimate objects (mountains & foundations) as witnesses because they are enduring or lasting.

Although I believe in a literal interpretation as far as possible, I also believe the Bible uses figurative language and we need not always push for a literal physical explanation.

(To be continued)

Firstborn of the Dead

Q. In Rev 1:5 what does it mean Jesus is the firstborn of the dead?

A. The phrase “firstborn of the dead” translates the Greek prototokos ton nekros. A similar expression prototokos ek nekros appears in Col 1:18, translated firstborn from the dead in the NAS:
• Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
• Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

Prototokos comes from protos “first” and tikto “to begat”. It speaks of His priority to, & preeminence over, creation, having first place in everything. Nekros means dead. So both verses refer to His resurrection.

Since there are people raised from the dead in the OT e.g. the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:32-37), & Jesus Himself raised a number from the dead e.g.
• Jairus’ daughter (Mk 4:35-42),
• the widow’s son at Nain (Lk 7:14-15),
• Lazarus (Jn 11:43-44),
in what sense is Jesus the firstborn from or of the dead?

All the others were resuscitated temporarily to live for a time, only to die again later. However, Jesus was the first to be raised to eternal life, the guarantee of a better covenant. He was not prevented by death from continuing His priesthood, which He holds permanently (Heb 7:22-24).
• 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Thus “Firstborn of the dead” speaks of both who He is, the preeminent One, and what He did, saving, offering sacrifice as priest, & interceding. It tells us His Person & His work. It is a very rich title.

Turn the Other Cheek (2 of 2)

(Continued from yesterday)

What about shirt & coat? The shirt is the inner garment, the coat the outer cloak, to keep warm while a person sleeps. In Jesus’ days a lender could legally keep a borrower’s shirt overnight as collateral, but must return his coat during the night so he can use it as a blanket:
• Ex 22:26-27 If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in?
• Deut 24:12-13 If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you;
This was not the laws of the country, but Mosaic law in the Torah, & definitely not lawlessness. By asking a borrower to let the lender have his coat also, Jesus was asking us to give up our rights & go beyond what the law required.

Paul understood this principle very well, for he taught in
• 1 Co 6:7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?

Regarding going two miles, under military law any Roman soldier can conscript a Jew to carrying his burden for a distance of up to one mile. This was the case when they pressed Simon of Cyrene into service to carry Jesus’ cross (Mt 27:32, Mk 15:21, Lk 23:26). By asking His disciples to go two miles, Jesus was again asking them to go the extra mile freely, not under compulsion.

Finally, with respect to giving & lending, Jesus was not asking us to be manipulated by panhandlers & acquaintances who want to take advantage of us, because we are supposed to be shrewd:
• Mt 10:16 Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

The principle is in:
• 1 Jn 3:17-18 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

Paul learned this well:
• Rom 12:17-21 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

So all cases in fact relate to not insisting on your rights, not taking revenge in your own hands, but giving up rights and going the extra mile because you are now a child of God, for the sake of your testimony. Roman rule applies only to Mt 5:41, so the first commentator you quoted generalized too much. Besides, no one except those who are indwelt & filled with the Holy Spirit can do these. To require that of the lower social strata, who may not be Christians, is to ask for the impossible, which Jesus didn’t do. The second commentator caught the essence of what Jesus taught better, though he did not explain it enough.

As to your own observation, there are only two parties in Mt 5:38-42 – you & the second-party, be it an evil person, your creditor, a government authority, or a brother in need. There is no third-party peacemaker as in Mt 5:9. While it would be nice to have a reconciler to act as go-between, you do not have that luxury here. So Mt 5:9 does not really apply. Hope this helps.

Turn the Other Cheek (1 of 2)

Q. What does Matt 5:38-42 “turn the other cheek” mean as applied to our time? A commentator says Jesus was showing the lower social strata how to live under Roman rulers. I have been told that it means not to retaliate against the evil doer or do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Rom 12:21

Taking it literally and applying it to present time, I think there are other Christian ways to avoid the confrontation. The peacemaker in Matt 5:9 would apologize or say something diplomatic to the evil doer who would then stop hitting. If the evil doer hits without any reason, the peacemaker could run away to avoid further confrontation and harm. To offer the other cheek is a provocation, daring the evil doer to hit again. Am I off the track?

Give the outer garment – Jesus says to keep the laws of the country. By giving into lawlessness would be contradicting the law!?

A. First note the context. Jesus’ instructions were to contrast what the OT law said, which the Pharisees misinterpreted (5:38), with what God wanted (5:39-42). So what was originally intended?

“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is a quotation from 3 passages:
• Ex 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
• Lev 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.
• Deut 19:21 Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The law’s intention was to:
• Fit the punishment to the crime,
• Limit the punishment to the crime, to control excesses.
It was the guide given to judges to execute justice. The Pharisees, however, misapplied it to individuals taking matters into their own hands. Sinful men have a tendency to revenge. The extreme example is Lamech, who wanted to avenge seventy-sevenfold:
• Gen 4:23-24 Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice, You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech, For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
The Pharisees turned this law into an obligation for the victim to demand his rights to retaliate. The OT law was actually good in restricting going overboard, but the Pharisees turned it into a duty to avenge oneself.

Now what did Jesus mean? Let’s read the text in
• Mt 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

First, what Jesus didn’t mean in v 39. He could not have meant let an evil person do whatever he wants unchecked, because that would have been contrary to God’s nature to judge sin. It also contradicts what He Himself did while on earth e.g.
• Jn 2:14-15 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;

Then what did He mean? Notice the details “slaps you on the right cheek”. The average person is right-handed. For him to slap you on the right cheek he would have to slap you back-hand, which was a great insult in Jesus’ days. According to
Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:6 (Jewish oral tradition) One who slaps his fellow, he gives him two hundred zuz; with the back of the hand, he gives him four hundred zuz.
i.e. the fine is doubled.
The issue was not just physical assault, but contempt. Jesus was asking His disciples not to retaliate against personal insult, but to leave it in God’s hands.

(To be continued)