✪ See brothers - Jesus, sisters - of Jesus.
✪ "Our offerings have fallen off some of late and the deacons have waited on those of our members who are not contributing to support the work, and three or four fairly well-to-do brethren say they will not support an unsociable pastor who spends his time in the study and won’t call on his members unless they are sick." Ref-1325, pp. 49-50.
✪ Questionable: Luke 4:39 (?);
✪ "With respect to the quotation of Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17, D. A. Carson argues that the apparent ‘discrepancy’ arising from Matthew’s application of a text about atonement to a situation about healing ‘is resolved if Matthew holds that Jesus’ healing ministry is itself a function of his substitutionary death, by which he lays the foundation for destroying sickness. This is exactly what we would expect, for sickness is one of the consequences of the curse on creation resulting from Adam’s sin." Ref-1291, p. 66.
✪ See sickness - sin.
✪ See sickness - judgment from God.
✪ salt sea, Gen. 14:3
✪ The daily and Sabbath Prayerbook. Earliest version by Rav Amram Gaon of the 9th Centry. There are many versions now and all are based upon the canonization of the liturgy by Rabbi Gamliel II of the 1st Century C.E.
✪ Phoenicians.
✪ Questionable: Isa. 40:5-10 (?);
✪ "The females in the congregation should receive instruction from the male leadership with quietness and full submission. They should not attempt to turn the tables by clamoring for the office of congregational teacher or by grasping for authority over men. Rather they should, literally, ‘be in quietness.’ The word, hesychia, translated ‘quietness’ in 1Ti. 2:11 and ‘silent’ in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2Th. 3:12) to mean ‘settled down, undisturbed, not unruly.’ A different word (sigao) means ‘to be silent, to say nothing’ (cf. Luke 18:39; 1Cor. 14:34)." Ref-0038, p. 735. "That. . . a connection existed between the women who are asked to be silent and the disorderly expression of tongues and prophetic speech receives support from two sets of parallel phrases in these texts. In addressing those speaking without the benefit of interpretation, Paul says, ‘The speaker should keep quiet in the church’ (1Cor. 14:28). Then in 1 Corinthians 14:34, he uses the same words: ‘the women should keep quiet in the churches.’ The NIV variation in translation does not reflect the fact that the Greek verb (sigaw) is the same in both. Second, in addressing the issues of disorderly prophetic speaking (1Cor. 14:29-32), Paul again urges silence on some so that others can speak. The NIV's ‘the first speaker should stop’ (1Cor. 14:30) again does not reflect the fact that the verb sigaw (‘remain silent’) is also used here. But more important, in calling on the prophets in the congregation to recognize that they are mutually accountable to one another, Paul says, ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of prophets’ (1Cor. 14:32). The Greek word rendered ‘subject to the control of’ is hypotassw. That is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where he follows the admonition to silence (according to the NIV) with the words ‘[they] must be in submission.’. . . These parallelisms in the imperatives to ‘keep quiet’ and ‘to be in submission’ strongly suggest that the problem of disorderly participation in prophetic proclamation and tongues was particularly prominent among women believers in Corinth, and that it is with respect to this context that Paul's admonitions must be understood." Ref-0120, pp. 615-616. ". . . the demand for silence on the part of women does not bring on irreconcilable conflict with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy, because the silence of 1Cor. 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Ti. 2:11-15)." Ref-0698, pp. 40-41. "Paul’s use of the word hēsychia indicates a quietness of temperament rather than absolute silence. Had Paul wanted to communicate absolute silence he would have used the different word siagō." Andy Woods, Ref-1217, p. 53. "But if we look at the context in First Corinthians we see that of the 34 times this term is used, 28 times Paul used this word to indicate someone who was speaking “by the Spirit,” and specifically someone who was speaking a prophecy (2 times) or speaking in tongues (22 times). In the immediate context, we see that this Greek word is used almost exclusively to indicate speaking in tongues." Ref-1307, p. 300. "[The women] were not to teach the people [1Cor. 14:34], nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking. It is probably that, on pretense of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers. [Barnes]" Ref-1307, p. 301. "Some of the Corinthian women might try to avoid the rule in the previous verse [1Cor. 14:34] by simply asking questions in the public church services. Here Paul says that the women are not even to do that, and this rule may have been necessary because even the act of asking a question can be a means of directing a conversation. This verse closes that loophole for the more forward or ambitious women in the Corinthian church." Ref-1307, p. 302.
✪ See blood - money.
✪ "A simile functions like a metaphor, only uses the words ‘like’ or ‘as’ (‘the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire,’ Ex. 24:17)" Ref-0015, p. 143.
✪ "Simon, Surnamed Zelotes, preached the gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, which latter country he was crucified, A. D. 74." Ref-1306, loc. 302.
✪ ". . . Justin Martyr, an apologist in the early church who was himself a Samaritan and who lived barely a generation after Simon's time, recorded some details about Simon, and there is no reason to doubt Justin's account. He says Simon was from the Samaritan village of Gitta. Justin and Irenaeus (a close contemporary of Justin's and fellow apologist) both record that Simon began one of the very first quasi-Christian cults. According to Irenaeus, the magician borrowed biblical imagery and biblical terminology and adapted them to various myths that he invented about himself -- including the blasphemous claim that Simon himself was the true God incarnate. Simon is regarded by many early church historians as the founder of the first full-fledged gnostic sect." Ref-0789, p. 68.
✪ "A discovery in 1941 of ossuaries (bone boxes) in a Kidron Valley tomb in Jerusalem appears to have disclosed the small coffins of the family of Simon of Cyrene (cf. Mark 15:21)." Ref-1282, pp. 328-329
✪ "Simon is called the [Canaanite] (Mat. 10:4; Mark 3:18), and the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). [Canaanite] does not mean ‘Canaanite,’ nor ‘man of Cana,’ but is the Greek form of the Aramaic Kanan, which means Zealot." Ref-0117, p. 118.
✪ The buying or selling of ecclesiastical pardons, offices, or emoluments. [after Simon Magus, a sorcerer who tried to buy spiritual powers from the Apostle Peter (Acts 8:9-24).] "The term simony, which is the buying or selling of things considered religious or sacred such as an ecclesiastical office, comes from Simon's desire to purchase the ability to impart the Holy Spirit to others." Stanley D. Toussaint, "Acts," Ref-0038, p. 2:373.b
✪ "The best of men are only men at their very best. Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, -- martyrs, fathers, reformers, puritans -- all, all are sinners, who need a Saviour: holy, useful, honourable in their place, -- but sinners after all." -- J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Matthew, 1856 (1986 reprint), p. 209 cited in Ref-0935, p. 752. "But sinful men are full of sin; principles and acts of sin; their guilt is like great mountains, heaped one upon another till the pile is grown up to heaven. They are totally corrupt, in every part, in all their faculties; in all the principles of their nature, their understanding, and wills; and in all their dispositions and affections. Their heads, their hearts, are totally depraved; all the members of their bodies are only instruments of sin; and all their senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., are only inlets and outlets of sin, channels of corruption. There is nothing but sin, no good at all. Rom. 7:18." Ref-1289, p. 120. "You never have exercised the least degree of love to God; and therefore it would be agreeable to your treatment of him if he should never express any love to you. When God converts and saves a sinner, it is a wonderful and unspeakable manifestation of divine love. . . . You never have loved God, who is infinitely glorious and lovely; and why then is God under obligation to love you, who are all over deformed and loathsome as a filthy worm, or rather a hateful viper?" Ref-1289, p. 129. ". . . tragically it seems that human nature is such that every society has enough misfits, fanatics, sadists and murderers to run concentration camps." Ref-1296, p. 82. "The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. From a speech by Martin Luther King Jr" Ref-1341, loc. 4418. "This biblical definition of sin goes much deeper than the popular idea that only specially bad people are ‘sinners’, and catches in its net even the most respectable among us. As Isaiah declares, compared with the glory of God, ‘We are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses [best deeds] are like filthy rags.’" Ref-1341, loc. 4547. "The doctrine of original sin--that all humans inherited both the built of Adam’s sin and a corrupt nature--was one of the chief points on which eighteenth-century Calvinists were at odds with their optimistic era. The emphasis on human freedom and innate capacities for virtue reflected growing modern tendencies toward views that men, or at least gentlemen, could control their own destinies." Ref-1348, p. 451. "The continent, which for nearly one hundred years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had prided itself on being the apogee of civilization, fell between 1914 and 1945 into the pit of barbarism." Ref-1410, loc. 469. "The moral question of how this conflagration could have been possible, how Europe could have plunged into this bottomless pit of inhumanity, would preoccupy the continent for generations. The war had revealed more plainly than ever before the terrible crimes of which human beings are capable when all legal constraints on behaviour are removed or warped to serve inhumane purposes. The concentration camp came to symbolize more than anything else the nightmare of a world in which human existence counted for nothing, in which arbitrary will determined life or death. Increasingly, it became clear that in creating this hell on earth for so many of its citizens, Europe had come close to destroying itself." Ref-1410, loc. 7192. "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives thing liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. . . . We mean this, of course, in the nicest possible way. Liberals tend to be nice, and they believer--here is where they go stupid--that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you've got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they're undoubtedly depraved 'cause they're deprived. If only we could get social conditions right--eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, . . . --everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to “We Shall Overcome.” Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything. Liberals suffer incurably from naïveté, the stupidity of the good heart. . . . Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean." Ref-1414, p. 64.
✪ "We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. . . . He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 55-56 cited in Ref-0122, p. 307.
✪ "Many of the convicts also unsurprisingly proved idle or simply unreformable. They stole private property, produce cultivated by the more diligent, game and fish, food from the government stores and the precious European livestock." Ref-1557, par. 1589.
✪ "(1) At salvation, Christ permanently saved you from the penalty of sin; (2) Through the Holy Spirit, Christ can daily save you from the power of sin; and (3) Jesus Christ ultimately will save you and all believers from the presence of sin for all eternity." Ref-0092, p. 95.
✪ "Concerning the meaning of James 5:16, this verse is not teaching, by way of a blanket instruction, that we should be confessing all our sins to one another. Rather, the verse should be kept in context, which begins with verse 14. Here, James is talking about a specific type of illness—an illness that was the result of divine discipline for a specific sin. When a believer realizes he is being physically disciplined with sickness because of a specific sin, he is then to call for the elders of his church and confess the sin to them, as confession also shows repentance. The elders, in turn, are to anoint him with oil and pray for him. In those specific situations, the healing is guaranteed. The confessing of sins in verse 16, within this context, is the confessing of the sin that brought on the divine discipline and it is to the elders of the church. So, kept within the context, we are not encouraged to confess our sins to everybody. The general principle is I John 1:9, which teaches that we are to confess our sins to God alone. James 5:16 speaks about a special case, applicable only in the context of sin that led to divine discipline." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Question 33: Does James 5:16 teach that we are to confess our sins to each other?, [http://arielb.org/archives/956].
✪ In these passages, confession of ancestral sin is in light of perpetuation of the sin in the offspring. They should not be used to teach that repentant offspring who have turned from their own sin are still required to confess the sins of their ancestors which are no longer practiced. See Ezekiel 18.
✪ "The noble savage was a simplified part of what was actually a far more sophisticated theory, but at its heart it was a belief in the essential good of humankind, in a primitive, ‘untouched’ state once shared by all peoples in which no one knew jealousy, greed, deceit or hate. These vices were supposed to be the by-products of an over-civilised western society; the proper business of enlightened European travellers, therefore, was not to infect ‘natural man’ with the diseases of civilisation, but simply to help improve their living condition by introducing useful crafts or manufactures, for example, or those useful plants and vegetables cultivated in Europe." Ref-1557, par. 1863. "The belief in the Polynesian noble savage had already taken a severe battering after the killings of Cook in Hawaii in 1779 and the French navigator Marion du Fresne in New Zealand in 1772, after which even Rousseau professed himself shocked that the ‘children of nature’ could behave in such a way." Ref-1557, par. 1869.
✪ "Calvinists, following older Christian traditions, spoke of the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to all Adam’s natural descendants as a way of explaining such teaching. How could one convince enlightened eighteenth-century readers that there could be justice in holding the whole race, including infants, guilty for sins they did not personally commit? Edwards answered by clarifying that the source of the guilt was that every human had a disposition dominated by an inclination to sin. Sin, as Edwards had insisted in Freedom of the Will, involved a person’s inclinations, not just isolated acts. So Adam was guilty for his dominant inclination to commit the first sin as well as for the act itself. Similarly, people were culpable for their corrupt natures that inclined them to sin even before they might actually act on those inclinations." Ref-1348, p. 454.
✪ "The fact that we are all constituted sinners in Adam has never been denied within mainstream orthodoxy. However, there has been, and still is, debate about how Adam’s sin comes to affect us. Calvin taught that we inherit from Adam a corrupted nature . . . However, the idea that we all sin, each in our own way, after Adam’s likeness cannot adequately explain why Rom. 5 repeatedly speaks of our condemnation as a direct result of one sin (Rom. 5:15-19). Consequently, others go further than Calvin and seek to explain how we could be implicated in Adam’s sin itself. For Federalists, this happens because God has appointed Adam as our legal, covenantal representative . . . For proponents of Realism, there exists some kind of metaphysical unity between Adam and all humanity . . ." Ref-1291, p. 246n13.
✪ "For through the mere existence of law the evil feels itself all the more provoked to display its real self. ‘Forbidden fruits taste sweet.’ By the prohibition the desire inflamed (Rom. 7:8), the sin ‘springs to life’ (Rom. 7:9); it awakes out of ‘death’ (Rom. 7:8), advances to ‘lust’ and to ‘deed’ (Rom. 7:8); and sin expresses itself in sins (Rom. 7:5). Thus the law is the ‘strength of sin,’ which forces the evil from within to without (1Cor. 15:56); and sin itself is as the fire in iron glowing but not yet red-hot, which at first burns quietly without being noticed, but if splashed with water hisses and rebels." Ref-0197, p. 127.
✪ cheth (ח)
✪ "The real reproach that should be brought against the victorious church is not that it drove out the old gods but that it did not succeed in driving them or their ways sufficiently far off." Ref-1290, p. 101.
✪ Old Testament passages contrast with the account of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10 in which the individual is judged for his or her own sin.
✪ "The ninth false security that the [Babylonian] exiles placed their confidence in was a false proverb that said, “the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?” The exiles believed that if God did punish Jerusalem, he would do so unfairly because the present generation would be punished for their father’s sins. However Ezekiel explains that God does not punish people for the sins of others but rather for their own sins. Because the current generation was sinful, they deserved the punishment that as going to come upon them." Andy Woods, "Introduction to Ezekiel", p. 28. [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/introduction_to_the_books_of_the_bible/26_ezekiel/ezekiel.pdf] accessed 20121003
✪ "Miles Stanford wrote: ‘It is more than comforting to realize that it is those who have plumbed the depths of their own failure to whom God invariably gives a call to shepherd others. This is not a call given to the gifted, the highly trained, or the polished as such… It takes a man who has discovered something of the measure of his own weakness to be patient with the foibles of others.’" Roger Barrier, "What It Means to "Take Up Your Cross" (and How to Do it)", October 29, 2019 [https://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/ask-roger/how-do-i-take-up-my-cross.html]
✪ "Now this infinite difference between the sin of blasphemy against the Son and that against the Spirit is not based upon any difference in the sanctity of their respective persons, but rather upon the difference between their respective ministries. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of men, and therefore in Him any and all sin can be forgiven. Now it is the peculiar ministry of the Spirit to testify to the Son and thus bring sinners into the only place where sin can be forgiven. . . It follows therefore that sinful resistance to the Holy Spirit, in the exercise of this peculiar ministry, must logically belong to a category of sin which is unpardonable. . . a hardened resistance to the witness of the Spirit will keep the sinner outside of Christ forever." Ref-0183, p. 315.
✪ Sino = China.
✪ The term ‘sincere’ (NKJV) is from ειλικρινης and "may have originally meant ‘tested by sunlight.’ In the ancient world, dishonest pottery dealers filled cracks in their inferior products with wax before glazing and painting them. The only way to avoid being defrauded was to hold the pot to the sun, making the wax-filled cracks obvious. Dealers marked their fine poettery that could withstand ‘sun testing’ as sine cera -- ‘without wax.’" Ref-0089, n. Php. 1:10.
✪ See Jesus - tempted. "A question has been raised, however, by orthodox theologians whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a peculiar character because of the presence of the divine nature. In a word, could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could He have sinned as Adam sinned? While most orthodox theologians agree that Christ could be tempted because of the presence of a human nature, a division occurs on the question as to whether being tempted He could sin." Ref-0104, p. 145. "In the history of the Christian church it has been carefully stated that Jesus in His deity was not able to sin, and that Jesus in His humanity was able not to sin. He did not sin in His humanity, because He always chose to do the right. He did not sin in His deity, because deity cannot sin." Ref-1101, p. 36.
✪ "Adam originally was “able not to sin and die” (posse non peccare et mori). In Christ, man will “not be able to sin and die” (non posse peccare et mori). Man was and always will be a finite reflection of the infinite God. However, in future glory, he will be like God in His inability to sin and His inability to die (1Cor. 15:54; Rev. 21:4)." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 26.
✪ "One evangelical cliché has it that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. There is a small element of truth in these words: God has nothing but hate for the sin, but it would be wrong to conclude that God has nothing but hate for the sinner. A difference must be maintained between God’s view of sin and his view of the sinner. Nevertheless the cliché (God hates the sin but loves the sinner) is false on the face of it and should be abandoned. Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, we are told that God hates the sinner, his wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible, the wrath of God rests both on the sin (Rom. 1:18ff.) and on the sinner (John 3:16)." Ref-1512, pp. 68-68.