Question #1:
Dear Bob,
These are all side questions, but questions I've had for a long time. Put this
at the bottom of your list.
Should I see a connection between a caduceus, staff of Asclepius and Moses' Rod
of God?
Response #1:
The staff of Hermes the herald of the gods was a staff. The staff of Asclepius was a staff. The serpent was associated with Asclepius, but I don't know of any classical representations of the staff with a serpent or serpents. The caduceus has a staff, serpents and wings. The rod Moses was told to set up had serpents. The staff had no wings. The caduceus has wings (possibly representing a reference to Mercury who is represented with wings). Short answer: the only connection is between an actual biblical event and symbol on the one hand, and a later amalgamation of symbols for other purposes later on. Shorter answer: not really.
Question #2:
Can I understand that all the snakes are later glosses? – presumably to
enhance the deity
of the medical profession and Asclepius?
Response #2:
I wouldn't want to represent myself as being an expert in regard to the iconography of Mercury and Asclepius (especially as things come to light all the time); also, "later" is always an interesting qualification. When it comes to mythology, there is syncretic development all the way from Homer onward and even into modern times. So it's always a question of "whose Mercury/Hermes", e.g., is being discussed (Homer's? Hesiod's? Euripides? Vergil's? Libanius? Some medieval or modern author's?). Unlike the Bible, this other stuff is notoriously difficult to nail down as it was always in flux to some degree. We know what the biblical staff looked like because the Bible tells us. How others interpreted it, modified it, combined it with pagan ideas is a historical question, not a biblical one.
Question #3:
Thinking of Asclepius and "pharmakon", did the sorcery of the Bible have anything to do with drugs and poisons?
Response #3:
No doubt it did, based upon classical sorcery; but there is nothing specific about this in the Old Testament. In the New Testament the words from the pharma- root refer to witchcraft which assumes such a connection.
Question #4:
Was the "pulse" of Daniel's day (Dan. 1:12) the same as we understand it today? (Beans, peas, legumes in general.)
Response #4:
The word in Daniel is a hapax legomenon, meaning it occurs only here in the Bible (actually twice but in the same context); the root has to do with sowing seeds so it does seem that this means "non-meat", but that is about all we can say.
Question #5:
Daniel was a concern. My belief is that these analogies/examples are included in the Bible for a reason and it's our challenge to understand. Daniel was adamant and convinced the eunuch (in which I believe our Lord had a part.) I assume it was recorded for a reason. Otherwise, it seems out of context with the rest of the book except maybe for the fiery furnace episode. If the root is "seeds" I assume that includes grains and nuts – all high in protein. I'll have to think on this more.
Response #5:
On Daniel, I think its clear from the wording and the context that we are taking about a vegetarian diet requested so as to avoid eating anything non-Kosher.
Question #6:
I didn't consider the kosher aspect of Daniel. That rather changes the emphasis. Can I extrapolate kosher conventions back then with what I've experienced today? That would suggest that cookery in Babylon was much, much different then.
Response #6:
When I say "Kosher", I mean in the biblical sense rather than the developed sense. There are many animals that are not to be eaten according to the Law, but how would Daniel and company be able to tell if a Babylonian "Mulligan stew" was fit for them to eat or not? A purely vegetarian diet, however, would avoid the possibility of going against what the Law said to do.
Question #7:
Does "wine," as used in the Bible, always refer to fermented grapes or is it a general term applying to all fermented beverages?
Response #7:
Yes, but I would have to look up thousands of references to be definitive. Wine is generally wine, however. There are other words for "strong drink" and "new wine" (both of which are also fermented and contain alcohol).
Question #8:
Do we know how it was drunk? Was it watered down as some have suggested? Or was it used in place of water at meals? Paul's instruction to Timothy to "take wine for your oft infirmities" always left me curious as to the nature of the wine. As late as the 1930s, medicinal herbs were extracted with wine. I wonder if there's a connection.
Response #8:
I don't know about 1930's practices. The practice in the ancient world was always to water down wine; drinking "pure wine" (a separate word in Greek) was considered degenerate – even though it is not as if they didn't get drunk on watered wine in the ancient world; even a "50/50" was considered extreme. Most common mixtures: 1 part wine to 3 or 4 parts water.
Question #9:
The wine question was mostly curiosity, though the watering down was
significant. Particularly in light of Paul's instructions to Timothy
which I assume meant real grape wine. That one, I suspect, will haunt me
for awhile. In later times, herbs were extracted in wine and watered
down to control the dose.
I wouldn't expect you to chase down thousands of references -- I'd go
blind doing that and ultimately, it's irrelevant to anything critical. I
thought if anyone knew, you would.
Response #9:
On Paul's instructions to Timothy, one reason why wine was used in the ancient
world was the poor quality of drinking water, especially in urban areas. Wine
acted as a sort of substitute for chlorination in the modern world. Timothy was
being abstemious to a fault in not taking advantage of the natural antibacterial
properties of a little alcohol mixed in his water and was suffering the
consequences. Paul is certainly not commending drinking to anything like excess.
To clarify, wine is wine. I don't know of any case where it isn't. The only
potential exception would be when wine is actually wine-vinegar. The vinegar in
John 19:29 is wine-vinegar (but there is a separate word for that: oxos);
no alcoholic content left in oxos. I'd have to carefully run down every
occurrence to make sure that this is not what is being talked about, but 99% of
the time wine means wine.
Question #10:
Do we know what the hyssop of the crucifixion was? Modern hyssop certainly couldn't be used as described in John 19:29.
Response #10:
The correlation of modern scientific words (colors, minerals, gems, animal and plant names) with biblical words (and ancient world terms generally) is a difficult subject. The Bible words are what they are and mean what they mean and refer to what they refer to. KJV translators and later translators have done their best to match things up but there is often no assurance that they have done so correctly. I have done work on this with gemstones in particular and it is true in that case that words with clearly mean X in English and sound exactly like X in Greek or Hebrew may actually mean Y. I'm not a botanist, but I can tell you that the English word "hyssop" (Heb. אֵזוֹב , 'ezowb) ; Gr. ὕσσωπος, hyssōpos) is clearly a transliteration of the Greek word which is itself a transliteration of the Hebrew word. How modern botanists (or whoever) came to identify the plant now known as "hyssop" with the biblical plant I cannot say. But it does seem fair to call the biblical plant from which the modern name for the now-known-as plant derives "real hyssop", as opposed to the new "name only hyssop".
Question #11:
As far as hyssop, the modern hyssop, a low growing herby plant, has nothing to do with the real hyssop recorded in the Bible. I've never found any credible identification of what was used to give vinegar to Christ. As near as I can tell, it was lost in history. I was hoping you knew! I consider it important. Particularly in light of Psalm 51. Tulsi/Holy Basil, perhaps?
Response #11:
On hyssop, John 12:29 is the passage that bothers people. We should understand "[stalk of] hyssop" as the ready-to-hand stick which happened to be used to elevate the sponge to our Lord. In this way there is a symbolism that those who proffered the vinegar did not realize, recalling the ritual cleansing through sprinkling with blood.
Question #12:
Interesting take on hyssop. I didn't think about the ritual cleansing which isn't obvious, at least to me, from the translations I've read. Still, it's an open question; the plant today known as hyssop couldn't have served in the Biblical account unless the cross was very short and low to the ground. And then, probably not. (Why hyssop? If just a stick, why not say so? Why specify?)
Psalms 51:7.
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
The purging aspect has my attention. What is it about the original hyssop that could purge? The modern version couldn't have done that. In light of your comments on purification, and our Lord's crucifixion it's even more curious. There's something to be learned here, and I still don't know what.
Response #12:
Why not just say "stick" or "stalk" as opposed to telling us that it was
of hyssop? No doubt precisely to show the connection to redemptive
cleansing (that is the sense in Ps.51 as well). The title over our
Lord's head was also said to be easily legible, so from that too we can
discern that He was not crucified many feet up.
It's also important to remember that we are talking about
the blood of Christ here, not literal blood but the actual death of
Christ in the darkness in having our sins poured out into His body and
Him being judged for them in our place (see the link). Hyssop was used
to sprinkle the literal blood of the Law which was a symbol and a type
of the actual work of Christ (cf. Heb.9:15-25).
Question #13:
I did some research on Hyssopus officinalis, our contemporary hyssop, and learned it is native to Europe and the Mediterranean Middle East. It can grow to 24" or so in the right environment and assuming Christ was rather low to the ground it would have made the proffer of vinegar reasonable. Hyssop, today, is used for congestion of the lungs, colds, mucus, etc. The symbolism is astonishing as a shadow of our Lord's death.
Response #13:
Very interesting! Thanks for this, my friend.
Question #14:
I was once again a victim of long held beliefs. Depictions of the crucifixion
had our Lord high on a literal cross. If I understand the mechanics of
crucifixion, the height would be irrelevant to the excruciating physical pain He
endured. Whether a cross or stake as some believe, would have made no
difference. If what I read is true, death would come by lung compression and
suffocation.
I haven't overlooked the true nature of His sacrifice at least as far as I can
understand it. I don't know that I could survive the pain of nails through my
feet and wrists let alone the darkness He
suffered. The best I can do is follow Him. And today, that can sometimes be a
challenge. I shudder to think of what it may be in the future. Our greatest
challenges are yet to come.
Response #14:
Indeed, we can't know how we will bear up under what is ahead until it is actually upon us. What we can do is prepare spiritually, and it is certain that the more we prepare spiritually the better we shall do (and vice versa). This will be about spiritual courage empowered by the Holy Spirit, not about physical courage, something which many unbelievers have as a natural part of their makeup.
Question #15:
I rarely pray for myself, but I do pray for the strength, mental, physical and spiritual, to endure the coming ordeal. I think of Stephen and the incredible strength it took to to endure what he did and wonder. I believe, that if I'm written in the book, I'll be given the strength required. And, I hate to admit, I sometimes hope I don't live that long. But, as the Lord wills.
Response #15:
We have to remember that the plan is perfect and that the foreknowledge of God is perfect. Just as He is working all out for good for us now, the same thing will be true in the future. The Tribulation is not going to change the nature of God or the intensity and perfection of His love for us. Those who don't know Him are the ones who are going to be in trouble – just as was the case in the exodus.
Question #16:
Could you comment on the thoughts below? A lady in our home group
Wednesday asked T & me to research ' Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights'. This
is what we came up with.
What do you think?
Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights
Jesus clearly stated that he would be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights.
This conflicts with the current ‘Good Friday’ Passover, which simply
assumes that Jesus was in the grave for two nights only, i.e. Friday and
Saturday night. As we believe in the inerrancy of God’s word, this would
mean that man has somehow contrived to get Good Friday wrong. How badly
will soon become apparent.
In order for Jesus to be in the grave for 3 nights would mean that He
was crucified on the Thursday (around the 6th hour, 12:00 noon), not the
Friday. There is no other way to interpret it.
Matt 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s
belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.”
We all agree Jesus was resurrected early on the Sunday, the first day of
the week (Luke 24:1). Counting backwards it means that Saturday, Friday
and Thursday nights were the three nights that He was in the grave.
Clearly Thursday must have been the day of the crucifixion. But why does
it seem that the bible implies that he was crucified before the sabbath?
There is a simple explanation for this, and that is because there were
two back to back ‘holy days’. This situation arises because the first
(and last) day of the feast of unleavened bread are considered ‘holy
days’ during which no servile work was to be done’. In this case the
Friday, being the first day of unleavened bread, or the ‘day of
preparation’, was a religious holiday, a ceremonial holy day. This day
could be any day of the week depending on what particular year is being
considered. In this case the ‘unleavened sabbath’ was immediately before
the ‘regular sabbath’.
Exodus 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first
day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: …. {12:16} And in the
first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day
there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be
done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done
of you.
Numbers 28:16 “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the
passover of the LORD. {28:17} And in the fifteenth day of this month is
the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. {28:18} In the
first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile
work therein… i.e. like a sabbath.
Clearly in Numbers 28 the Passover is eaten the day before the start of
the feast of unleavened bread, which is much like a sabbath. Also see
post '3.8..The Jewish ceremonial Calendar'. This now ties up with Luke’s
account as follows:
Wednesday (ends at 6pm)
Luke 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the
passover, that we may eat.
Thursday: (starts at 6pm on the previous day)
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with
him. Luke 22:14 (Jesus eats the passover with His disciples)
{22:39} And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of
Olives;……..
{22:54} Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high
priest’s house
“And as soon as it was day (i.e. Thursday a.m.), the elders of the
people and the chief priests and the scribes came together,(Luke 22:66)
(Herod) … sent him again to Pilate. {23:12} And the same day Pilate and
Herod were made friends together…
{23:21} But they cried, saying, Crucify…{23:25} And he released unto
them him (Barabbas) that for sedition and murder was cast into prison,
{23:44} And it was about the sixth hour (Thursday 12.00 noon), and there
was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. {23:45} And the
sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
{23:53} And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a
sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.”
Friday: Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath
drew on. {23:55} And the women also, which came with him from Galilee,
followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
{23:56} And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; (i.e. on
the ‘unleavened sabbath’)……..
Saturday {23:56} ……; and rested the sabbath day according to the
commandment.
Sunday {24:1} Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre,
Is it clear already? Lets try the same with Mark and Matthew. Mark is
essential because it clearly states that the day of preparation is the
day before the sabbath, a separate day which obviously was the Friday,
the day after the crucifixion.
Thursday Mark 15:37 “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the
ghost. {15:38} And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom…………”
Friday {Mark 15:42} And now when the even was come, because it was the
preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, {15:43} Joseph of
Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom
of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of
Jesus…..and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and
rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. {15:47} And Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Saturday – the Sabbath – no work of any sort done by the Pharisees or
the women
Sunday {Mark 16:1} And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they
might come and anoint him.
It also ties up with Matthew’s account as follows:
Thursday (Passover and day of the Crucifixion) Matt 27:45: Now from the
sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
Friday: (starts 6pm on the Thursday, first day of the feast of
unleavened bread): Matt 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich
man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple:
{27:58} He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate
commanded the body to be delivered. {27:59} And when Joseph had taken
the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, {27:60} And laid it in
his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a
great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. {27:61} And
there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the
sepulchre.
Saturday: {Matt 27:62} Now the next day, that followed the day of the
preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
……{27:65} Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it
as sure as ye can. {27:66} So they went, and made the sepulchre sure,
sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
Sunday: {Matt 28:1} In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulchre. {28:2} And, behold, there was a great earthquake:
How did they get away with the ‘Good Friday’ deception?
Jesus did not institute the Easter celebrations, the Catholic church
probably did. There is no reason for Christians to consider Easter as a
‘holy day’. We are only required to remember Jesus sacrifice on the
cross regularly during communion. That’s it. Christmas and Easter are
feasts instituted by man, and are purely traditional. But to change,
institutionalize and promote a false interpretation of scripture in
order to fit their doctrines is evil. There seems to be a coordinated
attempt to change bible references as well.
It will be seen that all ‘new’ translations (originating from Westcott
and Hort's Greek text/Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) change the KJV’s ‘the third
day‘ to ‘on the third day’. In this way its easier to say that Jesus was
in the grave on Friday and Saturday night, and resurrected ‘on’ the
third day. (Adding the word 'on' succeeds to deceive us …the sabbath was
6pm Friday, to 6pm Saturday, i.e. one day. Jesus rose approx. 12 hours
later , early on the Sunday. By that (wrong) reckoning, if one counts
Friday as the first day, He rose ‘on the third day’.)
However, the KJV clearly doesn’t teach this:
Matthew 16:21 “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of
the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised
again the third day.”
Matthew 17:23 “And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be
raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.”
Matthew 20:19 “And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to
scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.”
Matthew 27:64 “Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until
the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and
say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall
be worse than the first.”
Mark 9:31 “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of
man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and
after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”
Mark 10:34 “And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall
spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise
again.”
Luke 9:22 “Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and
be raised the third day.”
Luke 13:32 “And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I
cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day
I shall be perfected.”
Luke 18:32-33 “For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be
mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: 33 And they shall
scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise
again.”
Luke 24:6-7 “He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto
you when he was yet in Galilee, 7 Saying, The Son of man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third
day rise again.”
Luke 24:21 “But we trusted that it had been he which should have
redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since
these things were done.”
Luke 24:46 “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:”
Acts 10:39-40 “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in
the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a
tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;”
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day according to the scriptures:”
So we may ask "is the 'Good Friday' deception a human error, or
deliberate attempt to mislead?" If so, what is achieved by this
deception?
Nevertheless, this is a good illustration of how easily we can get
deceived by 'the majority opinion'. It could be dead wrong.
Regards,
Response #16:
There are a great many individuals out there in the ether who want to
make a great deal out of whether the cross occurred on a Friday,
Thursday or Wednesday. Personally, I'm not into organized religion. We
know that the Lord's fulfillment of the purpose of the Law obviated the
need for festivals (among other things in the Law), and so there is
absolutely no scriptural basis for celebrating Easter, let alone "Good
Friday" (even if a person thinks it was a Thursday or a Wednesday).
Certainly, every principle of biblical truth is important, but some are
very important, some moderately important, some only important in
principle. That's still "important" (as all truth is), but it ought to
set off any believer's spiritual warning radar when a principle that
clearly belongs to category three is elevated by someone to category
one. I call this phenomenon "hobby-horsing", and I have seen it a lot;
that is, when a small point becomes, seemingly, the whole purpose and
focus of some putative believer's "spiritual" life, "fighting for the
truth" of this small point when to others the importance seems tertiary
rather than primary (as is the case here).
This is not the only "hobby-horse" cause I've heard of by any means, but
I've had to spill ink and time on it before. Bottom line: our Lord was
crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. "How can that be three days and
three nights?" Short answer: in the ancient world they count
inclusively, and having any part in one day causes it to be counted as a
full day. We see an example of this in the supposed disparity between
Luke 9:28 on the one hand and Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 on the other.
"Why is the count different?" Short answer: Luke was counting
inclusively after the Greek system but Matthew and Mark were not.
It is also a characteristic of such hobby-horse flights of fancy that
they include all manner of seemingly impressive detail, often from
extra-biblical sources, often rabbinic, and the net effect of all the
"data" is that a person feels "carpet-bombed" into submission. It's all
very odd – and that is a sure sign that it's not correct. I've given you
the gist here. If you are interested in the details, they can be found
at the links (warning: it's a lot of hard slogging to get the same place
indicated above):
The Three Days (in BB 4A: Christology)
Aspects of the Crucifixion II: Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday?
Happy to answer any specific questions not covered above or in the
links.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Thanks Robert,
Totally agree that Easter is a side issue and need not be observed. But
the inerrancy of the Word is not a side issue. I'm afraid I'll have to
disagree with you on this one. To me Mark's chronology is clear:
Passover, the preparation, and the sabbath were 3 separate days.
Thursday Mark 15:37 “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the
ghost. {15:38} And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom…………”
Friday {Mark 15:42} And now when the even was come, because it was the
preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, {15:43} Joseph of
Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom
of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of
Jesus…..and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and
rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. {15:47} And Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid"
Regards,
Response #17:
I'm confused by your response.
You quote Mark 15:42 which states that the evening of the day on which our Lord
was crucified was "the day before the Sabbath". The Sabbath is Saturday, the day
before, the "day of preparation", is Friday, not Thursday. Even in Greece today,
Friday bears this same name, paraskeue, that is "the day of preparation".
As mentioned, all the ins and outs of this are described in the links.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Robert,
I believe you have a very high view of the inerrancy of scripture. In your own
words: "Suffice it to say, that such theories inevitably stem from a low view of
the doctrine of inspiration, that is, a failure to appreciate and accept the
truth of the fact that in the book of Revelation we have the very words of God
to the same exact and perfect degree as is the case with all the other inspired
books of the canon."
If Jesus himself in Matthew 12:40 distinctly says that He will be in the grave
for three nights, who are we to say that He was wrong? {12:40} For as Jonas was
three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Claiming a Friday crucifixion (i.e. 2 nights) we are either saying Jesus'
statement was wrong, or scripture is in error.
Three nights is what we have in scripture. Talking about 3 'days' is not the
issue. It's simple, no amount of verbiage is going to cloud the issue, try as
you may. Are we going to believe God or man?
Regards,
Response #18:
Indeed, the Bible is the truth – and I believe that you believe that too.
In my last email, I demonstrated that the Bible says that the crucifixion took
place on the day before the Sabbath (Friday), and we know that our Lord rose on
Sunday morning. He was therefore "in the grave" on Friday, Saturday and Sunday:
three days. A day consists of a night and a day in biblical reckoning, and part
of one is reckoned as a whole. So what actually is recorded as happening
fulfills the prophecy.
Let me point out that you are finding fault with what is recorded as happening
on account of the prophecy you quote here; but in fact you are failing to
understand the prophecy and allowing that misinterpretation to cause you to
disregard what the scriptures say actually happened at the crucifixion and
resurrection.
Also, the fault you find is that – according to your reckoning (which is not the
biblical reckoning) – if what the scriptures say happened actually happened as
they say it did (and it did), then our Lord would not have spent three FULL days
and nights in the grave. So you see a problem because the time was not
fully spent. But that insistence on demanding relative MORE fullness to
count for only a whole (and not more even though it is more) rather than
relatively LESS fullness to count for a whole (even though in our thinking it
falls short), while a cultural prejudice we have today, was not shared in
antiquity (see the link:
"the Hebrew word for 'all' ").
Let me point out that our Lord says in the prophecy you quote "three days and
three nights". You are taking this to mean "three days and three nights
EXACTLY". But if we were to adopt your alternative and substitute modern western
time calculation (instead of interpreting scripture according to the times in
which it was written), we would still find that our Lord was placed in the tomb
very late on Thursday but rose very early on Sunday. That would mean that He
would have, by our modern reckoning, spent only two and a half days and
nights in the tomb, not precisely three. Moving the day of crucifixion
back another day to Wednesday (as some have also proposed) creates a new
problem. If that had been the case, then our Lord would have spent three AND A
HALF days and nights in the grave. That is also NOT what the prophecy states,
and given that three days is the maximum time limit before, according to the way
things were judged at the time, corruption occurs (cf. Jn.11:39), that would
violate the prophecy that He would "never see corruption" (Ps.16:10).
As it actually happened, however, our Lord spent a part of all three
day-and-nights in the grave and thus fulfilled the prophecy. It happened just as
the gospels say it happened. Imposing our cultural norms and modern calculations
upon the Bible without regard for the proper manner of interpreting scripture
and especially prophecy not only doesn't work (as demonstrated) but is also a
very slippery slope which always leads downward. Consider: on the one hand the
day of the crucifixion is not a major issue for Christian faith and practice as
long as we accept the testimony of scripture completely and further accept that
all prophecy about the Lord was perfectly fulfilled (even if we have some
questions about it); on the other hand, becoming a partisan for an alternative
position of little account and becoming agitated about it and allowing this
small issue to assume out-sized proportions to the point of undermining
spiritual growth is a very poor bargain to make, especially since the position
is incorrect. And the spiritual disruption which allegiance to this position is
causing is a sure sign that it is wrong as well.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Thanks Robert, for taking the time to explain your position.
I agree with your summary that we're not dealing with a major issue here
' as long as we accept the testimony of scripture completely and further
accept that all prophecy about the Lord was perfectly fulfilled' about
Him being 'in the heart of the earth' for 3 days and 3 nights. I admit I
did think at one stage that principle was being threatened by your
position. I do now understand your reasoning, although I still find it a
bit of a stretch.
It is our incomplete picture of events or mis-understanding thereof
which gives rise to difficulties, however in this case that was positive
for me in leading me to have a closer look at scripture.
I have enjoyed digging into the passover/unleavened bread feast as well
and some of the seeming discrepancies between the 4 gospels. To find a
plausible solution was an enlightening journey with a number of other
delightful truths clarified. (Steve Anderson's Luke 22 sermon was also
helpful)
Regards,
Response #19:
My pleasure.
Feel free to write any time, my friend!
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
I read an article where a theological student said that he can prove
using precise grammar and exegesis in the NT that Jesus was crucified on
a Thursday. Is this true? Those who argue for a Friday crucifixion argue
that a part of a day can be considered an entire day according to the
Jews. They argue that Jesus was in the grave part of Friday, all of
Saturday, and all of Sunday. Those who say Friday say so because Jesus
was crucified the day before the sabbath. Another argument
is that Jesus was to rise on the third day, therefore, He could not be
in the grave for a FULL three days and nights. Some translations use "on
the third day", while others use "after" three days. There is so much
confusion regarding this. What day was Jesus crucified according to the
accuracy of the grammar in the bible?
God Bless,
Response #20:
Many people do seem confused, although there is nothing confusing about it if a person is really reading the Bible:
Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
Mark 15:42-43 NKJV
Note that the day of the crucifixion is clearly said to be the day before the
Sabbath. The Sabbath is Saturday. So the day of the crucifixion was Friday. Even
today in Greece, Friday is called Paraskeue, the same word translated
above "Preparation Day".
So this issue is only "confusing" because certain groups have made it what I
call a "hobby-horse issue", that is, something usually not very important which
is nevertheless invested with tons of "research" and reams of paper to "prove"
that everyone else is "wrong". These sorts of things don't even pass the "sniff
test" however – not with any Christian who is growing spiritually and has some
spiritual common sense. The fact that someone is making such a big deal out of
proving something not so important as different from what is generally thought
to be the case is a sure give away that the person is not really that interested
in the truth of scripture but only with their own egos.
Incidentally, "three days" counted according to western methods won't work for
Thursday either because if Christ were crucified and put in the grave late on
Thursday, since He rose very early Sunday morning, the clock would still lack
about half a day. Wednesday (yes, some say it was Wednesday) doesn't work either
because in that case the clock would have run over by half a day and now we are
into the fourth day wherein there is "corruption" (Jn.11:39), but our Lord is
prophesied to "never see corruption" (Ps.16:10; cf. Acts 2:27; 2:31; 13:35). So
we are left to accept that . . . what the Bible says is true.
You are correct in your understanding of how this actually works. In the
standard inclusive counting of the ancient world, a part counts for a whole.
Their concept of "all" is different from our "modern" concept. We are not "more
correct"; we just have a different point of view. We might say, "the whole city
was destroyed" and be OK with that description even if a few building were left
partially standing and there were a few survivors; the Hebrew way of looking at
things might use "whole" for somewhat less destruction . . . with which we might
quibble. But neither description is total or absolutely exact, and both express
"significant destruction". So likewise on this point, they are a little "under",
whereas we might find it OK if things were a little "over" on the time line. But
if a person wants to be slavishly literal, an exact microsecond count from the
time the Lord's body entered the tomb till the moment He walked out would be
required. That is the Procrustean logic people who want to dispute Friday
crucifixion call down on themselves – and it is not biblical (see the link:
"the Hebrew word for 'all' ").
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Hi Bob,
The part in the bible where the poor widow gave her last two mites in the
offering, does this text have anything to do with tithing? I don't always agree
with John MacArthur, but he said that it has NOTHING to do with tithing and
Pastors have abused that passage for their gain. He said the context has to do
with the widow trying to "earn" her way to God or Heaven. And then cited the
passage after that regarding the Pharisees "devouring" WIDOW's houses and making
false converts. Is he correct about that?
God Bless,
Response #21:
I don't find anything in the passage about tithing. Please also note that the
Lord was not commending the widow for doing what she did. He was merely pointing
out that because she had nothing, this gift represented a sacrifice far greater
than the Pharisees who were literally trumpeting donations of far less
proportional value.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #22:
Hello,
I've never visited your site before but it was a pleasure and very
interesting. I don't know if you have or have not been asked the
question whether or not the bible is in chronological order. I'm not a
bible scholar, I have no collage degree, I have a high school diploma
from 1972, I was born again in 1991 and the next 27 years me and my
family were planted in 3 different churches under 3 different Pastors.
The fist church that we were all born again closed, 2nd church closed
3rd church the pastor died a few months ago. I'm now in my sixties with
more neurological and physical challenges, it's would be easier to tell
you what I don't have then do. I'm now looking at dementia with
Alzheimer's disease possibly with 11 new neurological symptoms. 3 of
them is sleep disorders/insomnia, roaming and short term memory loss. So
all hours of the night and all hours after midnight I roam around our
apartment complex grounds with my red walker, i park my walker at 3
different locations and sit. I have no agenda, no expectations and my
mind is clear no memory so I sit and stare. Doing that for 4+ months and
I have learned more about my Heavenly Father and His written, breathing
living word in 4+ months then I have in 27 years, I learned more about
me, the REAL ME HOW MY FATHER SEES ME as well and during those night
hours the Father speaks. He has a lot to say and I have a lot I need to
hear. One of many things the Father said to me was this, "My son Jon,
the Pastors who taught you were all good men but like many of My people
they read and interrupt My word through their natural eyes instead of
allowing My Spirit to bring illumination to them through My eyes." So
the Father has shown me some mistakes that I assumed to be true for many
years because of the pastors I was under. One of them was, "We have
today, yesterday is in the past and tomorrow is not promised." So one
night the Father says, "you have been saying this for quite some time
correct? Yes I said, He replied, show Me in My word where it says that.
So I take about a half hour I search the bible, now understand I've
never read the bible from cover to cover and I never memorized
scripture, so now I am on my phone on Google searching. Yes there are
some forms of it but not the exact way I have been saying it. A
half-hour goes by and the Father asks me, "Jon were you able to find
it?" He knows it's not there, I said no. He says, "it's not there. Now,
allow Me to show you something. Because of all your Neurological
hurdles, you came up with something to help you adapt, but it was Me
that dropped the word NOW into your spirit. Some of My children believe
that their yesterdays, today's and tomorrows are all based on man's
calendar days, it's not your todays are "NOW" your yesterdays are one
second behind NOW and your Tomorrows are one second in front of your
"NOW'S." why? Because every second in front of your NOWS you do not know
what's going to happen so live for Me NOW, Love Me NOW, Surrender to Me
NOW, minister NOW, do everything NOW, don't procrastinate, do it NOW.
The Father has shown me taught me loved me healed my heart. I could go
on and on and on, I apologize. The Fathers been recently showing me
things about His word and one thing He told me was that His word was
written in chronological order. When He said that to me I had no idea
what that even meant and I still don't to a point. The Father said the
reason it was written in chronological order was to provide mankind a
word to picture view of the beginning to the end. don't know what
chronological truly means and especially with all my neurological
hurdles, but as I was led to search I found your site and to let you
know that the Father says His word was written in chronological order,
never to be divided, the law was given and we live under grace. The
Father keeps on saying Manipulation. It was man's manipulation that did
the following:
1) people to believe His word was not written in chronological order.
2) the law given
3) His word divided; never meant to be divided
Blessings
Response #22:
Thank you for your email.
You are most welcome to use any and all of the materials at Ichthys any
time.
I also answer Bible questions for those interested.
You did ask: "if you have or have not been asked the question whether or
not the bible is in chronological order (?)".
Answer: Yes. I've also responded. Here are two of the main links for
that:
Chronological Order of the Books of the Bible I
Chronological Order of the Books of the Bible II
It's important to understand what a person means by "chronological".
Usually what I am being asked on this subject is "which book was written
first, second, third, etc." This is not an easy question to answer, but
one cannot assume that the order of our English Bible is the only one.
Not at all. The most common Hebrew text order, for example, places
Chronicles last (there are other differences from our English order
too). In the Greek text order, what we have in the English Bible is the
same as most Greek manuscripts, but the oldest and best has a number of
differences from our English order, with Hebrews between Thessalonians
and the epistles to Timothy, and with Acts coming between Philemon and
James.
For people who want to read the books in "chronological order" in regard
not to when the book was written but when the events in the book, we
face the further problem of historical books. The book of Acts covers a
long time period within which Paul (and others) wrote a number of the
epistles, so one would have to stop reading Acts at some point and begin
reading 1st and 2nd Corinthians and so on with all the other epistles –
even if the dates were surely known.
This is not as unusual as it might seem to us. In the ancient world a
"book" was a scroll (usually of papyrus). "Books" as we know them were
not invented until the second century A.D. (after the closing of the
canon of scripture). Until that point, a congregation would have a
scroll for each of the four gospels, most likely, and with other books
on individual scrolls or perhaps combined with other books (such as the
pastorals going together). It was only later (2nd or 3rd century) that
these "books" were combined into THE book.
The Bible we have today is indeed God's complete and undivided Word. He
superintended the process of writing it, distributing it, and we can be
sure that He saw to it what we have is correct (even in terms of textual
issues, these are a relatively small proportion of the Bible and all
solvable for those who are trained in the original languages AND the
truth of scripture).
This is just a snippet of some of the issues addressed in the links
above and elsewhere at Ichthys. I'm happy to correspond with you about
any of these issues.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2nd Timothy 2:15 NKJV
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #23:
Mr. Luginbill,
Thank you for being gracious and taking the time for responding to my
email. Up until a short time ago, as was shared, I had no idea what the
definition was for the term, "Chronological Order" or that the written
Word of God was or wasn't in chronological order, or to be even more
transparent, I had zero interest what books of my bible were written in
which year, none of that had any interest for me. I had enough on my
plate having to deal with all the Neurological hurdles I had, have or
will face in my life. "BUT GOD." He has that way and timing to come and
lift us out of the pit when our heart cries out, "Father Help Me, in our
spirit, even before our natural mind knows or understands what's
happening. That's exactly what took place in me because you "read" the
transformation from my eyes on ME to HIM, my will in submission to the
Father's.
It was the Father that inspired the conversation about His word being
written in chronological order. The Father says it's not about which
book was written first but about time - chronological order, without
chronological order (perfect time) you cannot have cause & effect. He
says every second behind becomes history. He wanted to show us the "Big
Picture" Beginning. If it's all in chronological order, as one
reads/sees through the Fathers Eyes, the revelation becomes quite clear,
from the beginning to the end "cause & effect is continuous, an unbroken
circle.
Mr Luginbill, please understand, I am not attempting to be argumentative
or disruptive. But as much Fathers I will always have two choices,
obedience or disobedience. I deal in facts. The facts for me are this, I
know I'm Born Again, I know the "Call" on my life, the word says my call
is irrevocable, the Father revealed to me why, because it's who I am, it
was written in my DNA before the foundations of the earth was created,
He's God and can do anything but taking back my call, to Him, would be
like changing my gender, He can do that but He won't. I chose for 27-
years to be disobedient and I will not make that same choice again, why?
The cause & effect in my and those I love paid a high price. So Mr.
Luginbill if I'm wrong then the Father will deal with me. Those are the
FACTS.
Be Blessed,
Response #23:
With all due respect, I'm still unclear as to what you mean by
"chronological order"; as explained, this is a phrase which depends on
how people define it and there is more than one way to look at the
issue.
Also, I'm unclear about what you feel should be done (or not done) in
response.
Also as explained, the order of the books in the English Bible is not
identical to the Greek and Hebrew orders which predate them; and it's
not really possible to say with exact certainty which books were written
in which order. We do know that Revelation was written last and occurs
last in all orders and that the Pentateuch was written first and occurs
first in all orders.
As long as Christians are actually reading their Bibles,
the order in which they read them doesn't matter. I do encourage people,
however, to spend rather more time on the New Testament. Many Bible
reading plans want to "start at the beginning", but that will leave
weeks or months (depending upon how much one is reading every day)
before the New Testament – where so much truth specific for our present
Church Age is concentrated – is even touched. For some suggestions
please see the following link: Read your Bible
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #24:
Hi Bob,
It seems that I'm on a roll with asking good questions. Here are some more. When
Paul wrote Hebrews 13:3 he says
Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are
ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body.
What is the correct interpretation? Is it:
(A) Have compassion on those in prison because you are also in a prison: I'm
talking about your body!
(B) Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are
ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body of Christ and should care
for one another.
(C) Something else.
Also, it seems that Paul was reading the Book of Wisdom when he was writing
Romans 1. Some of the phraseology is near identical.
(1.A.) "For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of
them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." (Wisdom 13:5)
(1.B) "Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath
manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of
the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his
eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." (Romans
1:19-20)
(2.A) "For the beginning of fornication is the devising of idols: and the
invention of them is the corruption of life." (Wisdom 14:12)
(2.B.) "And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of
the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of
creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto
uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the
truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:23-24)
Response #24:
For your first question, (B) is correct. (A) is Platonic, soma sema,
as it was said, "the body is a tomb"; but we know that "the Lord is for
the body" (1Cor.6:13), and means for us to use our time while in it as
the bountiful opportunity it is.
On the other issue, it could well be the other way around. As far as I
know, there are no indications of the existence of this book until after
Paul had written Romans.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #25:
Hi Bob,
I was listening to a sermon where the Pastor said that the bible
contains the trinity in the very first verse, but in a different way.
(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
He said that the in the Bible contains a "trinity of trinities
consisting of time, space and matter.
1. "In the beginning" = Time (Past, Present, Future)
2. "God created the heaven" = Space (Height, Length, Width)
3. "and the Earth" = Matter (Solid, Liquid, and Gas)
What are your thoughts on this? Is this going out of what should be
taught about the Trinity or Creation?
My second question is about signs on Churches that seem vulgar. For
instance, there is a Baptist church and the sign out front read, "Love
the Lord your God. Is God your personal lover?" They argue that people
are taking it the wrong way and it simply means that we should love God
with all our hearts. For some reason, it doesn't sit well with me. Do
you think that churches should put signs up like that?
This just came to my mind which is why I did not ask it in the other
email. I've been thinking in my mind a lot of how terrible this world is
with all the hate, crime, murder, etc., and it deeply disturbs me. I
find myself praying to the Lord to please take me home and out of this
world, but at the same time I want to fulfill God's will in my life. I
believe with ALL MY HEART that God's will is for me to witness to my
loved ones and have them come to Christ as their Savior. One of my
brothers is now with God because I had witnessed to him, and he believed
the Gospel with every fiber of his being, and his change of life proved
it. The last time I saw him was on his birthday, and I never hung out
with him as much as I did that day; it was truly a blessing from God.
And now my sister who was living with him reached out to me about
Salvation. I don't take all dreams to come from God but this was a bit
different. She said that she had a dream where she saw my departed
brother who was very happy and gentle in the dream, and he told her that
the ONLY way to get to God is through Jesus Christ. She also said that
she had another dream where she was headed toward a cliff through a
narrow passageway, and that Jesus stood at the edge of the cliff
blocking her. She said she reached out to me because of these dreams.
But in spite of the dreams, I can see God's will coming to pass in my
life; that my entire family will come to the knowledge of the Savior and
be saved. So I guess what I'm asking is...is it wrong to pray to the
Lord to go home now? Sometimes I feel that it is selfish and that I
would only cause grief to my parents and loved ones, and that God wants
His will to be completely fulfilled in my life. What are your thoughts
on this? My number one prayer is to die glorifying God with all my
heart, unless He decides to return to Earth before that occurs.
God Bless,
Response #25:
Paul said this:
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
Philippians 1:21-24 NIV
So I think your desire – to be with Christ on the one hand but to carry out the
mission you have been given on the other – is right on the money. We don't know
what is best for us because of the same reasoning you've espoused and what Paul
says above. That is why we pray to our Father in heaven every day, "Thy will be
done!"
On the supposed Trinity example, I don't see it. I have used physical analogies
as illustrations to help explain the Trinity, but I would never claim that
they prove the Trinity. Since this person is linking the physical
analogy to the scripture, while I would advise against it, I would caution that
if done anyway the person should go out of his way to make it clear that 1) this
is not proof of the Trinity; 2) this passage is not actually teaching the
Trinity by saying these things; 3) this is merely an illustration of the Trinity
– anything beyond that would be incorrect in terms of this passage (see the
link: in
BB 1: "Definition (and illustration) of the Trinity").
As to contemporary churches, I wouldn't worry about them. It's not much use
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as they say:
"Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."
Matthew 15:14 NIV
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #26:
Good day sir,
Hope my message meet you well? I thank God for you.
Quite a time, am fine and still in the Lord. PLS CAN YOU HELP ME ON
THIS. Luke 12:34. The question is AS WE SPEND MONEY IN THE WORLD WHAT
ARE WE GOING TO SPEND IN HEAVEN. Thanks.
Response #26:
I'm very pleased to hear from you, my friend, and delighted to know that
you are still fighting the good fight for Jesus Christ!
As to your question, the "treasure" we are to store up in heaven (as in
Lk.12:34) is not money nor is it material. We know that there are great
rewards coming to believers who do what the Lord would have us to do
here on this earth with the time and the free will we are given (e.g.,
Heb.11:6). And I am sure that the smallest reward given by the Lord when
He evaluates the Church will be better than possessing the entire world
in this life – because, for one thing, this world is passing away, but
what we will have will last forever.
But as it is written:
"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
1st Corinthians 2:9 NKJV
As this verse makes clear, we don't yet know the wonders the Lord has for us in eternity. That is doubly true when we consider that we don't know how wonderful the resurrection body will be. Or how wonderful New Jerusalem will be. The Bible gives us some information on both (see the links), but these are both things of such transcendent blessing that we cannot even begin to fathom their wonders down here on this earth in these temporary bodies. We also know that there will be crowns of reward given for those who excel in the service of Jesus Christ (see the link). And we know that we who win the victory will rule with Christ during His millennial kingdom (e.g., Rev.2:26-27). So the rewards ahead will be great, greater than any amount of mere money in this world. We can't appreciate them yet – and that is no doubt also deliberate so that the motivation we deploy in love of Jesus Christ will be genuine.
(25) "Only hold fast to what you possess until I come. (26) And to the one who wins the victory and gives heed to My works until the end, I will give to him authority over the nations. (27) And he will shepherd them with an iron rod and crush them like vessels of clay, (28) just as I have received [the authority] from My Father. And I will give him the Morning Star. (29) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
Revelation 2:25-29
In Jesus Christ our Lord, the One who will evaluate us all for our deeds
in this life on that great day to come.
Bob L.
Question #27:
Hi Bob,
"But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned up! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, 'Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded.' But Aaron spoke to Moses, 'Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord. When things like these happened to me, if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have been good in the sight of the Lord?' When Moses heard that, it seemed good in his sight."
(Leviticus 10:16-20)
Nothing of this event makes sense to me. Explain it as you would to a
millennial teenager. And why would the priests eating the meat "bear
away the guilt of the congregation"? Is that even what Aaron was saying?
Sincerely,
Response #27:
Two questions here, it seems to me. Aaron rightly concluded that for him to
engage in this sacred ritual meant to be rejoiced over (since it represents
salvation) was inappropriate when he could not do it justice in his heart
because of his recent loss.
The high priest (and priests generally) represented Christ. So all of the
rituals which represent the cross have the symbolism of the priest bearing the
guilt as a type of Christ (in resurrection), just as the animals slaughtered and
burned represent Christ (going to the cross):
"You shall also make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet: HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And you shall put it on a blue cord, that it may be on the turban; it shall be on the front of the turban. So it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall always be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD."
Exodus 28:36-38 NKJV
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #28:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I am interested to know whether you have any studies on just "Types & Shadows",
both Old and New Testaments? If you do, would you please send me the links. If
not, can you recommend a good book and author that I might purchase one? Thanks
so much for your great help and guidance as always.
Moving on the Upward Way.
Your friend
Response #28:
I do treat these subjects when they come up in the course of doing other things. For example, please see these links:
Typology and Sequence in Old Testament Prophecy
Hermeneutics, Typology, Christophany, Theophany and Anthropopathism
Biblical Metaphors and Symbolism
The Heavenly and Earthly Tabernacle (for the symbolism of the altar et al.)
However, I've not engaged this area as an extensive special topic. Here is one famous work, available online:
Christology of the Old Testament by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg
Also, M.F. Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament (Moody: Chicago 1981)
treats these matters in a orthodox way when they come up.
I don't know of anything recent which is of much use. The problem is that for a
subject like this to be treated well, the author has to have an in-depth
understanding of doctrinal issues generally – and that is in very short supply
these days as you know. Generally speaking, if a work on these topics was done
since WWII, I'd be suspect; if was done before, it's probably available on line.
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #29:
Hi Bob,
I went to a club meeting rather recently regarding so-called "technical
interviews" for various and sundry computer science jobs. The gist is
that unlike most interviews where there is some chit-chat about one's
resume and experience and a very hand-wavy evaluation process, we CS
graduates are blessed with solving problems under time pressure in the
presence of people taking notes when we want to get hired. It's probably
just about as fun as it sounds.
At any rate, this got me to start thinking about what career avenue I
should pursue. As we've talked about already, the current plan is to
graduate ASAP (that day cannot come soon enough...), then support myself
doing computer science things while teaching the Bible in some capacity
on the side. (Or rather teach the Bible while doing computer science
things on the side). The tricky bit is that there is a whole awful lot
of variation in this particular field.
The three initial paths that have jumped out at me:
1) Work for a big tech company like Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. This
is definitely the best from a career perspective (doing so would be
"prestigious," whatever exactly that means), and would open doors down
the road in terms of what I could do after that. For example, I'd
probably have an easier time freelancing down the road with Google on my
resume.
2) Work for a boring-but-stable company. Designing bank software,
writing database software to catalog clothing inventory for department
stores, and what have you.
3) Work for a company designing Bible Study software (the two big names
are Logos and Accordance).
The are pros and cons to all three of these approaches. The big
prestigious company route would probably be more mentally taxing during
the work day, and said work day might get stretched more into evenings
and weekends (although I haven't been able to confirm 100% that one has
to become a workaholic to work at such companies. I'm sure it helps in
winning the rat race though – getting promoted to middle management).
The boring company route would be, well, boring. It would pay the bills
though, and probably give me more mental energy to dedicate to study and
ministry. The Bible study software route would hypothetically let me
work in a Christian environment (as much as a company can be, at any
rate), while combining my computer science skills and studies in Greek
and Hebrew. However, while I do personally use software from both of
these companies, I find most of the marketing distasteful, and think
they focus on extra-biblical things (such as commentaries and expensive
books from famous poobahs) over scripture and practical but demanding
works (like lexicons and grammars). So this would not necessarily be a
panacea either.
Do you think it's worth trying to find a job near a church you know is
actually teaching the truth? In the long shot that you had a seminary
colleague, for example, who you knew had a local church in X city that
would be receptive towards my endeavors (and provide a good environment
for me to grow in until I fully reach a point of production), and I got
an offer in X city – would it be proper for me to rate that offer
higher? (Do you have any such colleagues or connections to make this
relevant in any respect)?
Yours in Christ,
P.S. -- I find myself chuckling to myself wryly
most every week when I read the email postings. Usually I find some
observation of yours somewhat amusing -- not because it's not serious,
but just because life is sometimes genuinely funny in how things work
(or so it seems to me). For example, this week it was your response to
the reader inquiring about how to interpret scripture better:
In any case, the method is really very simple to describe if
difficult to carry through: 1) be given the gift of pastor-teacher; 2)
learn Greek and Hebrew very well; 3) grow up to spiritual maturity under
a solid teaching ministry that digs into the Word of God the right way;
4) learn the doctrines of scripture; 5) learn the Bible inside out; 6)
work very hard at figuring things out and teaching for many years; 7)
give yourself over to the Spirit for Him to guide you and to honor you
hard work and solid preparation by leading you to the truth.
This is dead-serious stuff, but it still made me laugh. It's so simple –
yet so very, very hard to do things the right way. One must "work very
hard," as you say.
Do you think one can have a sanctified chuckle at the pomposity of life
every once in a while? Or gross understatement about difficult things,
or looney cult behavior, or any of the other baffling and inexplicable
things that humans get up to? I think so – but humor is always a fine
line for Christians, as much of what people call humor is definitely not
appropriate.
Response #29:
On the "p.s.", I think humor is fine if it is not 1) obscene, and 2) not at the
expense of someone else. Of course, well over 90% of what passes for humor these
days falls into either category 1 or 2 and often both.
On the job front, some people have a tendency to do very little in preparation
for such things – less than they should. You seem to me to be the type of person
who is overly diligent. The thing is, despite hyper-analysis, there are so many
unknowns that the end result is likely to be a complete surprise on the other
side in any case. Which means that to a large degree we are probably better off
leaving many of these details to the Lord. Of course you have to have some
direction. He will honor the godly thinking and intentions behind your analysis
without you having to discern before the fact things that are at present
indiscernible.
For example, you can't know ahead of time whether or not your immediate boss
will be an angel or a devil or in between. Even if you pick the perfect option
and do the perfect interview and get hired to the perfect-seeming job in the
perfect place with the perfect conditions, one little thing like a bad boss can
ruin the whole omelet.
I think possibly setting conditions based on what you think you need to have in
order to do what the Lord wants you to do is a better approach: such as, enough
money to get by and enough time to work on your ministry (and a family life)
without a tremendous amount of pressure that will make this impossible and in a
place where pursuing the ministry you have in mind looks reasonably possible. If
there are multiple possibilities which seem to fill those requirements (along
with whatever else I've left off the list), then I suppose that's all to the
good. But the Lord blessed me with this job when I probably wouldn't have picked
it if I'd had the opportunity to get on at, e.g., Harvard (which would have been
a disaster for many reasons).
I don't have a strong opinion about practice interviews. The real danger there
is that you get an offer for a job that's too good to pass up and find yourself
in a situation where you not only have to snap into a whole new life but also
finish your degree on the side fairly quick or else get the heave-ho (akin to
taking a tenure-track job when still ABD – a mistake I almost made).
I'm also not too sure how much practicing interviews helps. It does to some
degree, I'm sure. If I had done that, perhaps I would have gotten on at, e.g.,
Harvard. I was TERRIBLE . . . looking back now from thirty years or so of
additional life-experience. But it did work out. I would say that the personal
chemistry between the interviewers and the interviewee seem to me to have been
the decisive factor. Other than that, they are looking for very specific
qualifications and those aren't going to change because of interview practice.
Also, interviewing is hard on the soul, the wallet, and one's limited time and
energy. Note: you're spending time on this subject instead of other things;
committing to the process will increase that expenditure by orders of magnitude.
If you had a favorite church or the like where there were many like-minded
people, getting a job nearby would be a positive. I'm not sure it's a reason to
move to, e.g., Denver or Houston, unless you want to try out living there in any
case. My friend Mark Perkin's church in Denver is not terribly large, I don't
believe, and whether or not you'd want to commit to it once you'd been a few
times is unknowable from twenty thousand feet; same goes for Berachah in Houston
(in spades, actually, in terms of it likely not being your cup of tea). Dallas
has DTS and the LA basin has The Master's Seminary, but getting involved in
places such as that really requires full-time enrollment and that's another path
entirely.
I do know that the Lord has got this in hand and that the plan which actually
exists and is in the process of playing out is perfect. So this is another test
– of genuine motives, desires and level of commitment.
I will certainly be keeping this in my prayers for you (already have been).
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #30:
Hi Bob,
I often hear Christians saying that God and Jesus doesn't laugh at all.
I tend to disagree as I find some passages in the bible where I truly
believe that God has a great sense of humor, even in the midst of His
anger. I see this on the OT when the idol Dagon was found fallen on its
face as in the position of worship (1 Sam.5:3). I also thought that when
Jonah was vomited out of the mouth of a big fish to preach to those in
Nineveh was somewhat funny. I could be wrong though, and it could most
likely be just me having a terrible sense of humor. Is there a reason
why Jesus laughing isn't mentioned in the gospels? Is it because His
mission was very serious, or that the main point was to focus on Jesus'
ministry?
God Bless,
Response #30:
It is true that there aren't any "jokes" in the Bible, but that doesn't mean there isn't natural humor or irony – there is plenty (as in your examples). Nothing was more serious than our Lord's coming into the world, and for that reason He gave up all manner of things that are part of a normal human life. For anyone in ministry, humor, while not forbidden, has to be carefully measured, because the dignity of the Word of God must not be compromised (Tit.2:7). But then we already know – or should – that all Christians need to be careful with their words. Humor is just one example of this. Here are some links on the topic:
Using humor at the expense of others
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #31:
Greetings Dr Luginbill,
I hope you are well!
So often, topics or themes come to mind that I'd love to sit and talk through
and fellowship with you on, that to check in on such a minor point at this
moment seems so lackluster! In any case, as I've been studying I have been
referencing several sections of yours, one of which is the Gap Interpretation in
your SR study. I'm in complete concurrence by the way. The semantical point I'd
like for you to clarify for me is when you wrote about Satans identification
with the sea creatures such as Leviathan and Rahab. Are you meaning to say that
Leviathan, for example, is a literal creature contemporary to man, and that it
is ALSO used symbolically to represent Satan? Or rather that it is indeed a
mythical creature that would have bore some actual characteristics to a creature
that existed for instance when the book of Job was penned; while also
potentially assimilating some characteristics of creatures that were the result
of perversion in the pre-Adamic post-rebellion angelic history? For some reason,
not completely known to me yet, the need to be able to articulate the proper
interpretation of this part of Job, and how to apply it spiritually, may be
called upon in me in the future, so I wanted to consult with you as I'm fleshing
some of this out.
Have a great rest of the day friend.
Response #31:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
As to your question, in my opinion in the book of Job, e.g., Behemoth is the
hippopotamus and Leviathan is the crocodile (see the link:
Explaining Job 40-41). However, in ancient times, knowledge of the world's
aquatic life was not as far advanced as it is today (not that it is yet complete
today). Part of the upshot of that is that these creatures were more mysterious
to them than to us, and as a result of that they used certain words representing
large and dangerous aquatic creatures more flexibly than we do today. So on the
one hand, there was some knowledge of what a crocodile was when Job penned these
words about Leviathan, but on the other hand there was enough mystery
surrounding that creature for the word to be used metaphorically and
symbolically for giant sea creatures of unknown proportions (cf. also Job 3:8,
41:1-34; Ps.74:12-14; Is.27:1). So while Leviathan the crocodile is real and was
known to be real, the idea that there were "other Leviathans", generally called
tanniyn ("sea monsters" or or
"dragons"
in KJV; see the link), was also clearly in view in the culture (as the
citations just listed make clear). Mostly, the Bible makes use of this to
present an allegory for the devil, and the same in all these matters is true of
Rahab (that is, the monster, not the woman who saved the spies – they are
spelled differently in Hebrew though not in English).
So, 1) Job refers to actual, known creatures; 2) the Bible does not endorse
mythology but it also does not pretend that myths are not in common currency in
the culture in which is it written; so 3) the Bible, in order to communicate the
truth, makes us of such mythical terminology about monsters to explain things
about the true monster, the devil.
Put it this way: I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, but I would not feel
that I was doing anything wrong by using "Nessie" as an example if I were trying
to make a point: "mysterious as the Loch Ness monster" or something like that;
figuring that on the one hand any Christian would understand that I was not
saying I believed the thing existed, and on the other hand that this made the
point pretty well.
In addition to the links given in the first paragraph, the main reference at
Ichthys is in SR 2
"The Sea as the Home of Symbolic Monsters Representing Satan" (but I think
you've already found this one).
Do feel free to write back about any of the above if you have further questions
or in case I've missed the point here.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #32:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Just have a few questions:
1. Matthew 8:12 it says: "but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out
into the other darkness; in that place there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth."
Matthew13:38 says: "and the field is the world; and as for the good
seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of
the evil one;"
It appears to me like these "sons of the kingdom" are two different
groups.
Can you explain?
2. In Matthew 8:17 it says: "This was fulfill what was spoken through
Isaiah the prophet: "He Himself took our infirmities and carried away
our diseases".
Jesus indeed do these things, so my question is Why are we having them
when it says "He Himself took them and carried them away?
Studying the Gospel of Matthew again and as always find new things that
I never saw before.
To God be the Glory great things He has done.
Thanks for your excellent help as always.
p.s., As I began to pray, suddenly a thought came to me about my first
question I stated in my email. The "sons of the Kingdom" must be
referring to two different kingdoms, the Kingdom of God and the kingdom
of satan.
Am I correct in my thought?
Thanks,
Your friend,
Response #32:
All Jewish people are "sons of Abraham" and so "sons of the kingdom",
the Hebrew construction "sons of" describing a connection to something
but without specifying the nature of the connection. Here, in Matthew
8:12, we see those who are by nature "cultivated olive branches" cast
off while "wild olive branches" have been grafted in, into their place
(Rom.11:16ff.). So by birthright, these who end up gnashing their teeth
do have a special right to the kingdom, but they are cast out because
they have rejected (or failed to accept) the King. Abraham, by descent
from whom they have this right, was "justified by faith", after all, not
by birth or works; so also all of his descendants must likewise be
justified by faith – in confirmation of their birthright – or else they
have no part in the kingdom.
As to Matthew 8:17, here we have a case of diseases and infirmities
representing sin symbolically. And,
indeed, without sin, there would be no death and no disease. Were we
still in Eden, there would be no need of any doctors (or undertakers).
So our Lord did die for all the sins of the entire world, without which
sins there would be no disease. The healing our Lord provides in His
first advent therefore represents the redemption from sin He has the
power to provide (and has provided by His death for all of our sins on
the cross):
“For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”
Matthew 9:5-6 NKJV
As the incident above makes clear, people then (and now) often get this
backward. We prize and value physical healing, but that is insignificant
compared to the deliverance from sin which our Lord's sacrifice
provided. When He told the cripple "Your sins are forgiven", that was
the amazing thing, far more amazing than the miracle of healing him from
the condition which represents sin and, directly or indirectly, is a
result of sin – that is, we all have a sin nature so our bodies
malfunction and we eventually die regardless of how "good" we may try to
be.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #33:
Dear Teacher
I have a question: When Paul said in the beginning of almost all his
letters "Grace to you and Peace from God and the Lord Jesus" or some
variation on that, it seems to me like he may have meant that in the
same way that we would say "so-and-so sends their love" rather than as a
prayer for God to grant his readers Grace and Peace. I presented it in a
debate as an example of how some books of the Bible claim to be God's
very Word.
I don't believe that it is necessary at all for the Bible to claim to be
God's Word in any part for it to be so. The proof is in reading it. So,
my argument did not depend on whether or not Paul indeed meant that.
But, for some reason, that part of the Bible recommended itself to me as
an example of such a claim. I also think that every book of the Bible
makes that claim in one form or another, especially by presenting
authoritative information that can only be given by one if one claims to
be speaking for God. Is that correct, Sir?
Your student in the precious Lord Jesus Christ
Response #33:
On your question, I don't follow as to how the superscripts of address
show that "this is the Word". But saying it's from "Paul", e.g., does
give the stamp of apostolic authority however (if that is what you
mean).
On "grace and peace" or "grace, mercy and peace", I think these are very
significant words. They are prayers for the recipients – and important
reminders that these things do belong to us as believers in Jesus
Christ; but of course they have to be seized and held through faith and
aggressive application of the truth. So these initial greetings are
wonderful reorientation devices – for those who are taking them to heart
and paying attention to what they truly mean.
Keeping you in my prayers and waiting on developments, my friend.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #34:
Bob,
You’re right about the “other pressures which produce distraction and result in
accidents” with regard to my mom. My mom has been working 55-60 hour weeks
because of all of this, and she’s been exhausted. I think all of this
contributed to her fall, and, in some ways, I think it was good thing she was
forced to take a few days off and now has to take it easy for a few weeks
(though I wish the concussion and headaches weren’t a necessary part of that).
I also wanted to mention that my mom has been attending a “life group” run by my
dad’s friend
(the pastor I’ve told you about). It’s a group of people from his church who
meet at his house every Wednesday night. We went to their church one Sunday back
in May and unfortunately it checked off pretty much everything on the list of
what’s wrong with churches nowadays. The building felt more like a concert venue
than a church, the music was vapid, the “sermon” was more like a 30 minute
motivational speech that started with a bible verse and then never touched on
the bible again, etc. However, this life group seems to do much more to fulfill
Hebrews 10:24-25 than the church does on Sundays. It’s a group of about 20
people who meet for the purpose of fellowship and encouraging and edifying each
other, and each week the pastor picks a scripture (or several) and teaches about
what it means and discusses ways to apply it to their lives. She seems to enjoy
it, and I look forward to attending with her once I move back there.
I have a few questions that I hope will be fairly quick to answer.
In John 3, where should the quote end? The NIV ends Jesus’ words after verse 15, but the NASB and ESV continue the quotation through verse 21.
Response #34:
Thanks for the further update. From what you've shared, I think being
back home is bound to be very good for both of you. I'll be keeping your
mom's recovery in my prayers – your new job also! I sure hope you can
convince her to take some time off. Not sure it's healthy to be working
too hard when still not 100% from something like this.
I'm glad to hear that's she's got some positive Christian fellowship. I
think the older generation finds these sorts of traditional "forms"
comforting and reassuring. I used to go to church with my mom too, even
though it did nothing for me (I it seemed to do something for her).
As to your first question, the quote goes all the way to the end of
verse 21. But I'm surprised at your report. My 1984 NIV has this longer
section all in red and ends the quote after v.21 (they do have a
footnote that some don't agree). This a very weird attempt to make a
critical part of our Lord's words seem less because "He didn't actually
say this" if we believe this sly attack. Confirms my conclusion that the
"new" NIV is worse every place they changed the 1984 NIV with their
"secret change".
Question #35:
In John 8:56, when/how did Abraham see Jesus’ day?
Response #35:
As with all departed believers, Abraham is viewing events on this earth with great interest.
Question #36:
What’s your opinion of paleographical dating of manuscripts? In the case of the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran, why would the paleographical dating place it at the end of the 2nd century B.C. when the carbon dating allows for dates in the 4th century B.C.?
Response #36:
Paleography is an inexact science – but much more reliable that carbon dating. The Qumran mss. in any case generally represent an inferior textual tradition influenced by the cult that reproduced them. In the case you mention, I would go with the more recent (paleographical) dating.
Question #37:
Do you know anything about the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis by Willem A. VanGemeren? Is it worth getting if I already have TWOT by Harris, et. al.?
Response #37:
I haven't used it. But many years ago I purchased the NT counterpart and it was one of the most disappointing things I've every bought: very costly and of absolutely no help. TWOT is actually somewhat helpful occasionally.
Question #38:
More of a comment than a question, but I found a couple of websites that I’m not
sure if you’re aware of that seem to be good to use to read the original
languages of the Bible when you have the internet but not access to paper
copies. It also seems to be useful for those without extensive experience in the
languages to figure out the root of conjugated words. In each case, hovering the
mouse over a word brings up a short definition and then clicking on the word
brings up a more expansive one (this feature seems to work better for the Hebrew
site than the Greek). For the Hebrew OT: http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/genesis/1.html
(other chapters/books found on the right side of the screen), and for the Greek
NT: http://greekbible.com/ .
I’m still hoping to write to you soon with ministry questions to at least get it
on the back burner instead of just sitting on the counter next to the stove
where it’s been since I’ve been dealing with all this personal upheaval this
year. Anyway, I hope you’re doing well.
In Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior,
Response #38:
Thanks – these are both useful. I've uploaded links to both my Greek and Hebrew
language resources pages.
Let me know about your new job! And also your planning for ministry.
Your friend in Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #39:
Hi dr,
I hope all is well. Can you please give me the difference between these
words in Hebrew found in Psalms, law, statutes, testimonies, precepts
and commandments. Are they mostly interchangeable?
Thank you
In Christ Jesus our Lord
Response #39:
First of all, what we have here is an English list, and it's rare for any
English version to be 100% consistent in rendering the same Hebrew word with the
same English word every time. For one thing, different translators work on
different pieces of the OT and NT (this explains "Holy Spirit" vs. "Holy Ghost",
both of which are to be found in the KJV for the exact same Greek phrase). For
another, there are times when the "normal" rendering will give a misleading
translation in English so that a good translator will not feel bound by complete
inflexibility in such cases.
For example, the word "statute" is often representing the Hebrew word choq,
from the root chaqaq meaning "cut" or "inscribe" – and the idea clearly
is of a mandate which has been "set in stone". "Statute" isn't bad, but I find
the following statistics from Strong's on KJV usage for that particular Hebrew
word: "statute (87x), ordinance (9x), decree (7x), due (4x), law (4x), portion
(3x), bounds (2x), custom (2x), appointed (1x), commandments (1x), miscellaneous
(7x." – even many folk's beloved KJV isn't completely consistent.
So yes, these are all synonyms for the words, commands, and requirements of the
Lord, but of course they all do have different roots and different etymologies
so as to have slightly different emphases, and that can be seen from the English
list as well. But when reading Psalm 119, for example, the idea of God's
expressed Will is so prevalent that we can be sure that the variation of
vocabulary has a lot to do with making the Hebrew text poetically powerful. That
is not to say that the difference of word choice is not important in each and
every case. It certainly is. But it is often the case of a very subtle
distinction that would take a great deal of consideration of each individual
passage to discern, and in such cases there is a real danger in
overstating the difference as well. I have seen the latter mistake just
as often as the former one.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #40:
Hi Bob and family,
Hoping you are well and not beset with too many problems, both on the
work front and the health front. Just a quick question and hoping it
won’t take up too much of your limited time and please, no hurry for
your reply. Just remembering some verses in Revelation which seem to be
conflicting – firstly in 3: 5, it says in part: and I will not blot out
his name out of the book of life, and I understand that is a promise if
we remain true. And over in 13: 8 it says in part: And all that dwell
upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the
book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I’m
understanding that to mean those who will worship the beast will not
have his name in the book of life from the foundation of the world. In
verse 3, my previous thinking was that all our names are there from the
very beginning – both believers and unbelievers, a believers name will
remain there, even in death, an unbelievers name is there also until,
either by the wilful act of accepting the mark or remaining an
unbeliever until death. Reading this again, it appears I never saw or
properly understood 13: 8 before now and I hope you can clear up my
misunderstanding if that has been the case.
Again as always dear Bob, with brotherly love,
Response #40:
You were right all along, my friend – you just needed to find a better translation of the verse:
[where they were written] from the beginning of the world, [even the book] which belongs to the Lamb who was slain.
Revelation 13:8
Here's a link where I comment on this:
"slain from the beginning of the world?!"
I hope you and your wife are doing well. I keep you in my prayers every
day and have been thinking about you lately. So it's nice to hear that
you are still motoring along!
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #41:
Hello--Could you please tell me the best translation for Isaiah 29:4? The KJV has this:
KJV Isa 29:4
And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.
So, is "familiar spirit" correct? Because a familiar spirit is a spirit,
sometimes in animal form, that helps a witch. Other translations say
"ghost" or just "spirit" or "spirit conjured by a medium." This came up
on the CARM boards. We were wondering what the best translation is. One
guy, a Mormon, just says it means the same thing as having a "familiar
face". In other words, a spiritual truth uttered by someone long ago,
that one is familiar with. I think that sounds a bit...whacky.
Thanks. No hurry; I know you are busy.
Response #41:
The verse is very clearly using necromancy as a point of comparison. All the
vocabulary in the verse describes that situation . . . "brought down", "out of
the ground", "out of the dust", "out of the ground", "out of the dust", which is
meant to recall the low and haunting "inhuman" sounds of necromancers . . . as
well as to remind us that their power and the spirits they try to contact come
from below, not above.
The key word that is exceptional here is 'obh (אוֹב), and it literally
means here, in conjunction with the comparative particle, "like a water bottle"
or "hollow skin for carrying water"; but the word is used for necromancy even
more often that it is for bottles, precisely because of the sound these may be
made to make when empty (think of bagpipes). So the KJV translation is right on
the money. Compare 1Sam.28:7: "Then Saul said to his servants, "Find me a woman
who is a medium (בַּעֲלַת־אֹוב)". In this passage "who is mistress of an 'obh
" shows that the word can also mean what the 'obh is, namely, "a familiar
spirit". I'm not sure where correspondent thinks "face" might come from –
certainly it's nowhere here in the Hebrew text or suggested by this particular
word.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #42:
Hi--Okay, I see what is going on now. The LDS church has tried to make
this Isaiah verse be a "prophecy" about the Book of Mormon, that the
"familiar spirit" out of the ground refers to the golden plates buried
and long forgotten for hundreds of years. This is what that church has
to say about this:
"Point out the phrase “thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a
familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of
the dust” (verse 4). Explain that this prophecy refers to the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon, which was translated from plates hidden in
the ground by Moroni. (“Lesson 125: Isaiah 29,” Old Testament Seminary
Teacher Material (2018)."
So, this verse supposedly points to the golden plates that Joseph Smith
supposedly found buried in the ground, forgotten after 1400 years...
Ever see a worse case of eisegesis in your life??
This is what a Mormon wrote on the boards, who took exception to what
you wrote to me about this verse:
"Your Dr. Luginbill has fed you a load of nonsense. The verses are addressed to and are about the inhabitants of the city of Ariel, David’s home town.
Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel. And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.
Isaiah wasn’t calling those people necromancers or prophesying that they would become necromancers. He prophesied their destruction and said that their collective voices would be like the voices of any long-dead but not quite forgotten peoples, whispering to us from the dust."
I told him to write to you and tell you it is a "load of nonsense" and
also include where he learned Biblical Hebrew. So you two could debate.
Hah!
It never ceases to amaze me, what some of these Mormons come up with...
The Mormon did not mean face is in the text, just that the familiar
spirit is an expression similar in meaning to a familiar face. Which I
think is dumb. The Book of Mormon mentions a familiar spirit, but tries
to make it s good thing. Thanks again.
Response #42:
I don't see how correspondent's
characterization of the actual passage is in conflict with my
explanation of the language. I do fault the logic; it seems to go
something like this:
1) Isaiah 14:3 speaks about "someone" taking their seat in the far
north.
2) Santa Claus has his workshop at the north pole.
3) Therefore Isaiah 14:3 is a prophecy about Santa Claus.
At least the above is in the holiday spirit.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.