Question #1:
Hi Bob,
When Hebrews 4:15 said that Christ was "one tested/tempted in all ways as we
are", I have been trying to wrap my head around what Paul is getting at here.
What "sameness" exactly is in view? Some elaboration:
Put simply:
1) Since Jesus could have exercised his divine power and only wasn't doing that
out of conscious restraint... in many ways, that makes the testing he
experienced different (harder) in ways we cannot even imagine, right? Like being
able to free himself from His suffering and affliction -- and the humiliation of
being in weak human flesh generally -- at any point in time for decades, yet
choosing not to. We can't even begin to grasp that, I'd think.
2) Since Jesus did not have a sin nature, how is it the same? How is it not
apples and oranges?
3) Many people seem agnostic or downright hostile to the idea that Jesus "could
have" even sinned period (see Q #1 on this posting). Personally, I'd never much
considered it before thinking on this current verse just now, but I think it's
quite apropos here. If Jesus could have never failed the test, then how is it
truly a test? Am I missing something?
The context here is Paul urging readers of the letter to be bold in approaching
the throne of grace, for in Christ we have an advocate who can sympathize with
our struggles and weaknesses. The hang-up in my head is that (2) and (3) prima
facie sort of make it seem to me like Christ's experiences were different than
ours, and not the same... if one adopts the position that Christ simply could
not have ever done anything less than perfect anyway. That, to me, just seems to
fly in the face of how Paul seems to be using this verse. So is that position
true, and if so, what does this verse mean? (And what does it mean for Christ to
be tested then, anyhow?)
Apologies if you've written all this up already somewhere (you can link me if
so). I did look, and couldn't find anything that seemed to be this exact thing,
although it's possible I missed something.
In Him,
[omitted]
Response #1:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we areyet he did not sin.
Hebrews 4:15 NIV
1) Yes, I would say this was infinitely harder for our Lord since 1) we don't
have the option of considering using a deity we don't possess, and 2) our Lord
couldn't make one single mistake, not one single slip of the tongue or
undisciplined thought . . . or we would have all been lost.
2) Adam and Eve didn't have sin natures either but they still sinned. When Paul
says, "He too was put to the test in all things just as [we are], [only] without
sin", this is speaking of the external sources of the temptation and testing
which are "like" to what we face. But it is "apples and oranges" in the sense
that His road was so much harder so as to make understanding it impossible this
side of heaven. The point is that "He knows what it is like" because He faced
every external test and temptation we do and much more besides (since He was the
devil's number one target of all time). If there is a difference, it is the fact
that He knows far better than we what the struggle is like, not that He cannot
sympathize with us because of no proper frame of reference; the whole point of
the verse is to assure us that indeed He can.
3) That is why I phrased things in the way I did in the second posting in your
second email. The traditional theological formulation, non posse pecare,
posse non pecare ("not able to sin; able not to sin"), falls afoul of this
verse you ask about in the first part, I think even though OF COURSE our Lord
was NOT going to fail . . . and He did not.
Bottom line: our High Priest had to endure far worse than us in terms of the
trials of life . . . and did so for our sake perfectly. Any formulation which
diminishes this in any way fails to understand that He was truly human and also
fails to understand what it took to live a perfect human life.
In Him,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Dear Bob,
I just remembered something which has been on my mind for quite some
time, but only I only ever 'remember' is when it comes around again. My
church does a communion every month or so, toward the end of the month.
The intent of this is a symbolic gesture, as they know it isn't
necessary; though, there is one thin I have been curious or even a bit
concerned about.
When reading the communion prayer (is it a prayer?), there is a part
speaking of those who drink and eat and are unworthy, taking in
condemnation into themselves. What is this passage referring to? What
immediately comes to my mind is one who is being deceitful, or
'pretending' to be of the faith, but I don't get the context behind
that. Should we ourselves even being doing communion, or is it a more
'ritualistic' practice that actually doesn't help anything?
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
Response #2:
Most groups don't understand the basics of communion. Our Lord says when
we eat and drink we should "do this in remembrance of Me". In other
words, communion is about remembering Him, His person and His work in
dying for our sins. If we are doing that, we are fulfilling the purpose
of the ceremony, regardless of extraneous factors. This is about
remembrance, not ritual.
In terms of the "prayer", outside of quoting scripture, there is no
special prayer. Paul does say the following:
(27) Therefore whoever eats the [communion] bread or drinks the [communion] cup of the Lord in an unworthy way is guilty [of offense against] the body and the blood of the Lord. (28) So let [each] person evaluate himself and in this manner (i.e., following confession of all sins remembered in such reflection) let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (29) For the person who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment for himself if he does not evaluate his body [aright] (i.e., refusing first to repent and confess). (30) It is for this [very] reason that many among you are sick and infirm and not a few have passed away (i.e., have suffered the sin unto death). (31) But if we were evaluating ourselves [so as to repent and confess], we would not be falling under judgment. (32) And when we are being judged [for this offense], it is by the Lord that we are being disciplined, to the end that we might not be condemned (lit., "terminally judged") along with the world.
1st Corinthians 11:27-32
This means that believers who are "out of fellowship", that is, not
having confessed their sins, should not take communion. But that is
easily fixed by simply confessing one's sins. After all, we are supposed
to do that whenever we say the Lord's prayer.
There is no need to "have communion" only in a local church. The
"fellowship/communion" it recalls is that between us and the Lord,
rather than with each other.
Here are some links:
The Communion Ceremony outside of the Local Church
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Dr,
I am thinking about taking communion at home. Is it biblical to use real wine or
should I use grape juice? How do you administer your communion?
Thanks you like always and May the Lord bless you and yours.
Response #3:
There is nothing in scripture which says anything about this. Our Lord used bread and wine the staples of the day for eating and drinking but He emphasized what they represent His body (perfect person) and His blood (His spiritual death wherein He paid for the sins of the world not the things used to represent Him and His sacrifice. He says when we eat and drink we should "do this in remembrance of Me". In other words, communion is all about remembering Him, His person and His work in dying for our sins. If we are doing that, we are fulfilling the purpose of the ceremony, regardless of extraneous factors. This is about remembrance, not ritual. Here are some links:
The Communion Ceremony outside of the Local Church
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Robert,
How do you know you're not taking communion unworthily or 'eating and
drinking judgement on yourself' ?
Response #4:
1st John 1:9 says "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (NKJV).
If our "feet are clean" (i.e., we have confessed), then we are "good to
go"; if we are refusing to confess our sins, that is when this passage
you allude to (1Cor.11:27-32) applies. Communion, like the census in the
Old Testament, invites the Lord's "inspection" of us. No one wants to
show up to inspection with a dirty rifle or having forgotten to put on
one's uniform at all. So by all means confess whenever you are going to
take communion. If you do, and if you are remembering Him His perfect
person as the God-man and His work on the cross whereby you are saved
then you are participating worthily.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
In John 8:30 to the end of the chapter, the text mentions that many had believed in Jesus yet indicates that they turned right around wanting to kill Him. When Jesus mentions certain individuals as "children of the Devil" is he referring to those who believed in Him? If so, was this genuine faith they possessed so that they were positionally saved for a time but not so right after? How could they have believed and fallen away and lost their salvation so quickly? Couldn't this be a case of their faith was only a mental appreciation of the facts and not something they genuinely meant in their hearts? As in, their initial belief didn't result in salvation? One of the typical arguments against the truth that the rocky ground in the parable of the soils is describing apostate believers is that those who believed only had demon faith/belief and were, therefore, never positionally saved at any point (which, to them, means no loss of salvation occurred).
Response #5:
In terms of John 8:30 ("Even as he spoke, many believed in him"), Jesus addressed those in the crowd who did believe, but the pronoun "they" later in verse 33 is coming from the end of the verb and refers only to the ones who gave our Lord this rebellious answer. In other words, in English, most translations make it sound as if there were only one group present who all felt the same in every way (never happens). My interpretation: Jesus "spoke to those who had believed", that is, for them and for their benefit. But even though "many" believers, there were also "many" who did not, the majority no doubt. These are the ones who took offense.
Question #6:
On another note, can you help me understand kenosis? I'm confused on one point. If Jesus had free will, but He's God and can't sin, then how is it free will?
Response #6:
On kenosis, yes indeed, our Lord was a genuine human being in
every way. The fact that He never faltered did not mean that He didn't
have to put in all the effort necessary and make all the good decisions
necessary so as NOT to falter (cf. Heb.4:15).
We don't have to worry about the hypotheticals. There are no
hypotheticals in the plan of God. There is only what did happen, what is
happening, and what will happen. And for us, only good things are going
to happen in the end . . . just as long as we stay close to Him
because our Lord Jesus Christ never did fail (and so became our perfect
Substitute who took away all of our sins on the cross).
Links:
Kenosis in BB 4A, and in
HE 5: Kenosis and the Blood of Christ
Question #7:
Greetings Professor,
I hope all is well with you and yours! I continue to pray daily for you
and your ministry. It has been a while since we last spoke. (as I have
said before, I usually find what I need on your sight if I dig enough).
Today, I had a sister in Christ ask me a question about two specific
words in the Bible and what they actually mean in the original language
of the Bible. In Hebrews 13:5 Paul quotes Duet. 31:6 "Never will I leave
you: Never will I forsake you! It is also recorded in Duet.31:8,
Joshua1:5 and 1st Kings 8:57. What does "leave" and "forsake" mean in
the Greek and in BH? Does it carry the same meaning as our English
translation of those words? Any help would be appreciated!
(On a side note, this discussion came about while discussing Jesus
Quoting Psalms 22:1 and paraphrasing Ps.22:31 on the cross. They didn't
believe that a member of the Trinity could be forsaken by another member
of the Trinity, and I had to explain that indeed the Father did forsake
his son (in his humanity) because it was the only way he could suffer
our spiritual death on our behalf by taking our sins upon him and
becoming a curse on our behalf!)
No hurry on your reply. Praying you have a great week!
In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Response #7:
Good to hear from you, my friend. How goes retirement?
On "leave" and "forsake", the Greek and Hebrew words are synonyms in the
context of both the original passage in Deuteronomy 31:6 etc. and the
quote in Hebrews 13:5: God is absolutely faithful. He never leaves us in
the lurch or abandons us. He is always "an ever present help in trouble"
for those who commit themselves to stay close to Him (Ps.46:1).
In terms of our Lord and the quote in Psalm 22:1, "why did You forsake
me?", that is the same verb as in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 31:6 and
translated in Hebrews also as "forsake".
Clearly, the Trinity is the Trinity and in their deity there could and can
never be any changing. Psalm 22 is given to us for our sake to show us
the sacrifice made by the Father and the Son for us to be saved: The
Father had to judge the Son and the Son had to endure the judgment
something only made possible through the ministry of the Holy Spirit
(Heb.9:14). Only Jesus ever had or will have to endure that sort of
"abandonment" and He did it for us.
Understanding what happened at the cross, our Lord's spiritual death on
our behalf whereby He took away all of our sins, is so important, but
also not so easy without a certain level of spiritual maturity (as I'm
sure you know, this is covered in
BB 4A; see the link).
Thanks for those prayers! They are needful and appreciated keeping you
and yours in mine daily as well, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Hi again Bob,
Today there's a lot of hoopla about the Turin shroud and computer
generated images of Christ. Not surprisingly, the confuser[sic]
generated images don't differ much from tradition. My question: given
what Paul wrote about women's long hair and men's glory to be uncovered
before God (can't remember the cite,) is it probable that Christ had
long hair as the news is expounding and tradition portrays?
Yours in our Lord,
Response #8:
There's absolutely no evidence in scripture to even suggest that our
Lord's presentation of Himself as an unglorified human being during His
first advent was in any way odd or remarkable (just the opposite: e.g.,
Is.53:2: "He had no [particular] handsomeness that we should take note
of Him, no [obvious] charisma that we should be taken with Him"). There
is not a single verse that references any such thing which, given that
we have four gospels, e.g., would be uncommonly odd if so. No verse
suggests He was a Nazirite, only that He came from Nazareth (not the
same thing at all). And as you suggest, Paul's words about even nature
itself telling us that it is a shame for a man to have woman's length
hair would be in conflict with this at least without an explanation
if at the time of writing there were even any idea abroad of such a
thing. That alone shows such pictures of Christ as we have today are a
later invention and wrong-headed.
As to the shroud, why in the world would anyone reasonably connect it to
Christ except to be sensational? There is no evidence whatsoever that
there is any such connection (just the opposite). That's just RC
poppycock (like the lance and the holy grail etc.). Let us remember that
Jesus was resurrected on the third day so there was no need after that
of any shroud.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Thank you for confirmation. There is so much nonsense afloat that I don't pay
much attention anymore. This was a question that's been in the back of my mind
for quite a while and I thought it was time to ask.
I'm happy your semester is going smoothly. May that continue in future
semesters.
In our Lord Jesus,
Response #9:
Thanks!
Here's something else on that I posted a long time ago:
Question:
Here are a couple more shroud of Turin articles. You getting many email questions about this? This strikes me as a real RC kind of thing; a modern version of relics.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140549
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139981
Response:
Blessedly, I haven't had to deal with this one too much. I'm not sure what the question would be. Even if the shroud were in fact and indeed a burial shroud which rested on our Lord's body for the short time it was in the sepulcher, and even if that could be proved, "so what?" If a person needs a physical artifact even to believe that Jesus existed, there's not much faith there (if there is any faith there at all). Moreover, for skeptics and unbelievers, even such rock-solid proof of a connection with our Lord (and there is of course nothing of the sort not even anything close to approaching anything of the sort) would not prove that He is who He is. To do any good it would still require faith in the gospel, belief that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins (and of course such faith is available to all, independent of artifacts).
I completely agree that this is an "RC kind of thing", and does indeed smack of the medieval trade in relics. To me, it is a measure of how empty of true content the teaching of the denominations of any and all who get het up about such things must be that they have to look for things like Noah's ark in a vain attempt at spirituality and spiritual momentum. Definitely a "sign of the times".
Yours in Jesus,
Bob L.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Hi Bob,
I've come to the conclusion, sadly, that all organized religion is
nonsense. Maybe I should say "religion" is an organized system of
beliefs that has little to do with reality but instead, supports the
hierarchy in that religion. In many ways, it's not much different than
politics. Thankfully, I have nothing to do with either.
Some of the things the Lord is recorded saying in scripture has proven,
in my life. to be true. I need no shroud, grail, or other supposed
artifact to confirm my faith. I couldn't reconcile what Paul wrote with
current iconography of Christ's hair.
Note: the WND links have long since expired.
In Jesus,
Response #10:
Thanks for the note. I don't try to keep up with links which are not mine, but
that's good to know.
Re: organized religion as nonsense. It makes a lot of sense . . . to Satan. It's
part of his "bait and switch" strategy, or otherwise put, "you can't beat
something with nothing". In order to keep people from the truth, the devil has
always offered a set of clever lies as a substitute . . . starting with Eve.
Hope you're staying cool down there! Things went smooth yesterday, until my AC
went out on a 100 degree °F day just as I was about to hit the sheets. This was
the second night in a row. I was able to somehow coax it back into action but
not before wrecking my night. Blessedly, the warranty people were able to come
today and got it straightened out.
Thanks for your prayers! Keeping them up from this end too.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hi Bob,
Satan's first lie (at least as recorded in scripture) seems to be prevailing
today as it has always been.
That's bad news about the AC. A relative in Florida lost hers during the recent
storms. Given the humidity you and she have, no AC would be tough. I'm glad you
got it worked out. Thankfully, mine has been relatively steady. We're having a
cold front coming through down here. Daytime highs in the mid to lower 90s with
brief forays into the upper 80s. It all comes with a price. There has been a lot
of rain, which means I'll have to mow again this year. A disappointment.
In our Lord,
Response #11:
Yes, there's a reason why the permanent population of FLA only started booming
once AC was invented and became affordable.
Sorry about the mowing! I'm going to have to spend a good hunk of my long
weekend on yard work as well.
Stay cool!
In Jesus,
Bob L
Question #12:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,
Thank you for the prayers! Saturday went well, the work was pretty
straightforward. I have my second shift this evening. I am trying to do
my work well and stay out of as much drama as I can.
At church, we have been studying through the Gospel of John and this
Sunday was on John 8:1-11. To my understanding, that was not part of the
original manuscript. The pastor did talk about the controversy, but he
concluded that it was actually part of the Bible.
I spent a few minutes reading what you had to say on it and also pulled
up another article off the internet, but that writer's argument was
based completely on speculation. The writer admitted that John 8:1-11
was excluded from the 3 most reliable manuscripts, but that lots of
others included it. Then he said that he thought the story was true,
that probably John told the story a lot and so it was associated with
him so strongly that later writers decided to include it in the Gospel.
Not a solid argument, I don't think.
I don't think I am growing much by going to that church, nor do I think
I am particularly harmed (although for a moment I wondered, "well, did I
get it wrong and how do we know"). I have met good, genuine believers
there and they are all nice and do seem to want to seek the Lord. Still,
if I want the people around me to grow (like __, who is still a good
friend) then she isn't going to get what she needs in that church (past
a basic level). They don't often say things that are flat-out wrong, but
sometimes they do. And then what do you do, if you don't know much about
the Bible (like ___)? And with lots of churches teaching wrong things or
not very in-depth Biblical truths, am I harming my Christian witness by
going to church? I now work with lots of unbelievers. Just thoughts I
have.
And with my Bible studies for young adults I attend, while the Scripture
part is good and always edifying, a lot of times the explanations around
it are either very basic or slightly off or are just thoughts and aren't
explaining the actual Scripture. So I'm finding myself a little
discouraged. And I'm no better, cause here I am not spending enough time
with God in my own personal life.
Respectfully,
Response #12:
It's my pleasure, my friend. Glad to hear that things have started off
well.
I appreciate you digging into this passage. It's pretty clear why people
want to keep it, namely, because of tradition and because they like the
story and the "cast the first stone" part. But it's not part of the
Bible. And anyone thinking about it from a biblical point of view can
probably see that. What did the Lord scribble in the sand? And why
wouldn't the Bible say what He wrote? It's not like John. It's not like
the Lord. It makes no sense. Why would these people bring the woman to
Jesus since they disrespected Him every other time, and why would they
do what He said to do since they never did so at other times.? One could
go on. But there is no record of this "story" before the 12th century.
Why would all of the early mss. and versions leave it out? The fact that
it IS such a "good story" pleasing to the ears if not the spirit
argues against ANYONE taking it out if it were already genuinely there (here's
a link which says a bit about the mss. evidence for rejecting the
passage as original).
I can't tell you what to do about church, but I'm very pleased to see by
your questions and by what you are recognizing that you are growing
spiritually. These are all the right questions, and being able to
discern right and wrong to a degree better than everyone else there is a
sign of that growth. I don't say that to swell your head. It's just a
fact that as we grow what is untrue becomes glaringly obvious to us
and also uncomfortable.
Re: "I'm no better, cause here I am not spending enough time with God".
We can ALL always do better, and, God helping us, we will not ignore
such promptings of the Spirit but will respond to them. Even if we don't
do so as quickly as we should or as fully as we should at first, if we
commit to sticking with it, we will get better at fighting this fight .
. . one day at a time.
So please don't be discouraged. At least you ARE fighting the fight. And
in this era of Laodicea, that is a pretty rare thing.
Keeping you in prayer, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hello Brother Robert
Hope all is well. I have a question to ask you.
Did Jesus Christ ever return near the location or to Decapolis after He healed
the man that was possessed to preach unto the people.
Response #13:
There's no record in any of the gospels about our Lord ever returning there (Mk.7:31 doesn't speak of this region but the adjoining one to which the man delivered from the "legion" returned).
That is not surprising. After performing His miraculous deliverance of the demoniacs (Matt.8:28; with the responsive one sent home and who later evangelized the whole Decapolis region: Matt.8:34; Mk.5:20; Lk.8:37), the entire town heard about this AND the loss of the swine herd . . . and asked Him to LEAVE (Mk.5:17). Clearly, they wanted nothing to do with the truth.
His one visit demonstrated definitively their corporate disinterest in
the gospel and also accomplished the purpose of the ONE man who was
willing to be saved being saved.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Shalom Bob,
Hope ALL IS WELL with you and your loved ones!!!
My question is regarding the Greek word "parakypsas" (παρακύψας) as it
is used in its V-APA-NMS form in Luke. 24:12; John 20:5 and James 1:25
and translated in the KJV respectively as follows:
Luke 24:12 (KJV)
12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he
beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in
himself at that which was come to pass.
John 20:5 (KJV)
5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet
went he not in.
James 1:25 (KJV)
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth
therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this
man shall be blessed in his deed.
To this end, as such my question is this, WHY did the Biblical
translators choose to translate this Greek "parakypsas" as it relates to
Lk. 24:12 and Jn. 20:5 as "Stooping Down" rather than as it was
translated in Jas. 1:25 "Looketh Into"? This Greek 3879 word is variably
defined as follows:
Definition: To stoop, to look intently, to peer
Meaning: I stoop, peer in, look down, look intently.
Moreover, Matt. 27:60 reveals that the stone which covered the opening
to Jesus tomb was anything but small.
Thus, was this translation merely an educated opinion based on what many
of the historical constructs of Jewish tombs of that day actually
consisted of - a smaller opening?
Would I be incorrect in assuming that this was indeed to be a very
wealthy man's tomb, not only for himself but, for his future posterity
burials as well? It would seem to me that this said tomb could have been
of a considerable size, therefore the necessity of a much larger
opening, hence the "great stone".
I do not ask this question simply for the sake of pointless theological
argument, but rather to inform my wife and myself in our literal search
for the factual and truthful geographical location of Jesus' tomb. We
have personally visited both the Jerusalem Church of the Holy Sepulcher
tomb and the Garden tomb and neither seems to fulfill the
requirements...
Your response to this concern will be most appreciated.
Until His Trumpet Sounds,
Response #14:
The verb kypto means "to bend forward". James uses this verb in a
metaphorical way. If you think about it, "look into" is also
metaphorical (i.e., we're not really looking INTO anything literally,
we're "looking closely"). I don't answer for any particular translation.
"Took a close look" or "bent over to get a good look" would be what's
meant. Since Peter ran in after he got there, I think we can assume that
this was a huge vault of a tomb.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Shalom Bob,
Thank you kindly for taking the time to respond to my question.
I completely agree with you. Therefore, if I understand you correctly,
your metaphorical analysis of the verb "kypto" used by James implying to
"Take a close look" or "bent over to get a good look" would be equal to
what we have reasoned. The metaphor of "bending/stooping over" was not a
direct result of the actual physical limitations of the height of the
tome entry itself, but rather the metaphorical physical posturing for a
closer and intensive look inside. Somewhat analogous to the "squinting
of the eyes" and the "slight turning of the head" when we are wanting to
hear or see something presented more intensively.
That being said, from your scholarly perspective and many years of
proven scriptural exegesis and argumentation - just how important to
Biblical scholarship and the Christian faith would a proven discovery of
the literal and actual location of the tome of Jesus be?
I would sincerely appreciate your opinion.
Until His Trumpet Sounds,
Response #15:
Re: "how important to Biblical scholarship and the Christian faith?"
In terms of the former, archaeologists would be thrilled I'm sure to be
able to document the exact location, and any genuine information about
the ancient world, Classical as well as biblical, is always welcome to
scholars in particular and often to the general public as well
(especially when, as in this case, there is a particular interest). Just
how anyone would "prove" to everyone's satisfaction that this place
where the earthly body of our Lord lay in repose for a scant three days
was "the place" is another question.
As to the second element, I don't see how this would affect my own faith
or that of other believers a bit. We believe in Jesus Christ even though
we have never seen Him (Jn.20:29; 1Pet.1:8). That being the case, the
temporary tomb seems neither here nor there. As far as unbelievers are
concerned, many are prepared to accept a "historical Jesus" without at
the same time putting saving faith in Him. Archeological finds are
unlikely to change that since salvation has to do with the heart.
But what does it say? The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.
Romans 10:8-11 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Shalom Bob,
Thank you for your kind response.
I AGREE with your summation.
We already have some discovered tangible evidence of Jesus' Tomb, but
our flights back to Jerusalem for examination of facts keeps getting
canceled due to the war.
I will update you when we acquire additional relevant evidence.
Until His Trumpet Sounds,
Response #16:
My pleasure!
Question #17:
Hello Bob,
I hope that you have a quiet, peaceful and spiritually fulfilled
Christmas my friend and that your ministry goes from strength to
strength in the next year.
As it is coming into Christmas time, I wanted to write to you asking
about Jesus' birth but it seems that you have already covered it all
here:
https://ichthys.com/mail-eventssurrounding.htm
I wondered if the word 'manger' was like the word "to eat" in both
French and Italian. You have already outlined that this was part of His
humble entry into this world but you also went on to describe this
manger as coffin-like so as to foreshadow that our Lord was born into
this world to die for us.
Was also wondering, as He was born amongst animals and rested in a place
to feed animals -- was this to associate our Lord with the animal
sacrifices right from His birth? Also was wondering if the association
with the words 'manger' meaning 'to eat' was also symbolic of the fact
that the Lord actually told His followers that His flesh was 'food
indeed' and His 'blood drink'.
Was wondering if I was reading too much into that or if they are in fact
significant details.
Marana-tha!
Thanks for everything!
Your friend in Christ,
Response #17:
Thanks for the great Christmas greetings, my friend! Wishing you and
your families a very merry one and a blessed 2025 as well!
On "manger" et al., don't know if it is that file you are referencing or
not, but the idea of the barn is a medieval invention. The "manger" (Gr.
phatne) being taken as a barn is incorrect; it is a feed trough.
There was no cradle to be had in the inn so they improvised with
something very close in shape and size: a wooden trough used to feed
their animals. Indeed, this speaks to our Lord's very humble origins but
the cultural paraphernalia that have accreted around this story are
false which probably explains their popularity. Here is one link that
fleshes out the details:
Praying for you for a peaceful holiday as well.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
In the past, I've often asked you about the spiritual death of Christ. What do you mean Christ "died spiritually" other than that He took all the sins of the world of all time on Himself? He gave up His own spirit (not bleeding to death) but since spirits are eternal (alive forever once they are created in the case of humans and perhaps in the case of some animals as Ecclesiastes 3:21 seems to indicate), what do we mean that Christ died spiritually? Like, yes, He took our sins on Himself obviously but dying spiritually- what exactly does that look like (even if the full extent of that point might be unknowable and incomprehensible to us)?
Response #18:
On "spiritual death", this is possibly not the best term to use for our
Lord's paying the penalty for our sins (for reasons you explore), but it
is a term I inherited. So I have retained it. Also, I've never been able to
think of a better one, even though the concept has to be explained in
order to avoid confusion.
We all know what physical death is. What else is there but "spiritual
death"? What I mean by the latter is the intense pain suffered by our
Lord in His death in the darkness, that is, His being judged for the
sins of the world, paying the fiery price for them all. He didn't lose
consciousness or die physically, but what He suffered was so terrible
that "death" is the only word that does it justice.
That is paralleled and precedented in scripture too. The lake of fire is
called "the second death" even though those cast therein do not lose
consciousness for all eternity. We could call it a "spiritual death", I
suppose, in order to distinguish, but since scripture differentiates it
clearly enough with "second death" ("the lake which burns with fire and
brimstone, which is the second death", Rev.21:8; cf. Rev.20:14), that's
not necessary probably. But not adding an explanation has caused some to
see this "death" as oblivion which it is definitely not (link).
Also, we have this:
He was punished for the transgression of my people. (9) And they assigned Him a grave with the wicked (pl.) and with a rich [man] in His deaths (sic).
Isaiah 53:8b-9a
As explained where this is covered in
BB 4A Christology, the plural used by Isaiah is speaking of the
intensity of the judgment our Lord suffered. So scripture calls Christ's
sacrifice "deaths" and when it does it is not talking about His exit
from physical life in exhaling His spirit; rather it is referring to the
unimaginable agony of being judged for the sins of the world. So one way
or another we are going to have to explain this to people (to those who are
interested in learning), and it's a potential problem of confusion
either way absent the detailed explanation.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
15 inches (and more)? What? That's almost twice as much as what we got here!
Sounds like you got quite the blizzard out there! Glad to hear the issues at
work weren't too major.
Understood on everything else (the Greek included, finally(!)). So when we say
the "spiritual death of Christ," we refer to the pain and agony of Him taking on
the sins of humanity, not Him exhaling His Spirit which then went down to the
underworld (Abraham's bosom and the fallen Angels responsible for the Nephilim 1
Peter 3:8-22)? Just making sure.
That's all I got! Thank you for taking the time to explain all this.
In Christ,
Response #19:
My pleasure.
Yup. We got a thaw today but not enough to clear anything out. Just
enough to put an inch of water or so on the clear patches which will
freeze tonight with three or four days of sub-freezing temps ahead.
Dicey out there tomorrow, I'm guessing.
Re: "So when we say the "spiritual death of Christ," we refer to the
pain and agony of Him taking on the sins of humanity, not Him exhaling
His Spirit which then went down to the underworld (Abraham's bosom and
the fallen Angels responsible for the Nephilim 1 Peter 3:8-22)?"
That's correct. With that perspective, I would suggest reading these
links to get the details straight: Both in BB 4A:
"The Blood of Christ" and
"The Spiritual Death of Christ".
Best wishes for a good week ahead, my friend. Keeping you in my prayers
(and thanks much for yours).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
Hope all is well for you. ___ and I have been studying the coming
tribulation. He asked me what the incense means in this scripture.
And when He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for
about half an hour. (2) And I saw the seven angels who stood before God,
and seven trumpets were given to them. (3) And another angel with a
golden censer came and stood by the altar, and much incense was given to
him so that he might offer it for the prayers of the saints on the
golden altar in front of the throne. (4) And smoke from the incense went
up from the hand of the angel before God for the prayers of the saints.
(5) Then the angel took the incense holder and filled it with fire from
the altar and threw it to the earth. And there occurred thunderous
voices(1) and flashes of lightning and an earthquake.
Revelation 8:1-5
I'm not sure how to explain it. Can you help me please.
Thank you.
Response #20:
It's been a rough patch here, but we are hanging in there (praying for the same
for you guys!).
Incense represents the "sweet savor" of Christ's sacrifice (Eph.5:2). The Father
"smells it" and is pleased/propitiated by our Lord's work on the cross (which
the incense represents: the incense altar is also a picture of Christ; see the
link).
As those who belong to Him, our prayers are likewise pleasant to the Father, and
that is what is represented in Revelation 8. As the Father is pleased with His
Son's work, so He is pleased with us who belong to Him and thus pleased to
answer our prayers. Here's a snippet from CT 3A
(link) where this is covered:
2. The Incense for the Prayers of the Saints
Under the Mosaic law, the preparation of incense and its use was very carefully prescribed (Ex.30:34-38; cf. Lev.10:1-2; Num.3:4; 26:61; 2Chron.26:16-20) and for good reason. In the symbolic function of Jewish ritual, which, as we saw in our previous study, closely mirrors the heavenly realities (cf. Heb.10:1), the offering of incense represents acceptability in approaching God through intermediary means (Ezek.20:41; cf. Lev.16:12-13). The incense is "salted", pure, and holy (Ex.30:35; cf. Lev.2:13; Matt.5:13; Mk.9:50; Lk.14:34-35), and, in the analogy, the work of Christ in the fiery judgment of the cross is like this incense, sending up a "pleasing aroma" into the presence of the Father as it burns (cf. 2Cor.2:16). Therefore the redolent smell of the earthly incense when burned has its primary application as a memorial to the sacrifice of sacrifices on the brazen altar of the cross, expressing the complete acceptability in the Father's eyes of our Lord's death on our behalf:And walk in love, just as also Christ loved you and gave Himself up as sacrifice and offering for a sweet smell to God.
Ephesians 5:2Since, as this image of the incense shows, our Lord's substitutionary death is completely acceptable to the Father, a sweet savor (which the incense reproduces) satisfying His righteous demand for the propitiation of all our sin, it has also opened up the floodgates of grace for all who turn to God through faith in Jesus Christ. For this reason, the image of the incense has a further application, namely, to express the validation or rendering acceptable of everything done in His Name. That is clearly the main thrust of the image of the incense used here in Revelation 8:4, where its sweet savor is said to rise up for the prayers of the saints.(5) In other words, these prayers are made and considered completely valid through this heavenly incense though not through the incense per se, but rather by the empowering sweet aroma of the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross which the incense represents.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry to hear you're in the midst of a rough
patch. Please let me know if we can be of any help.
I'll go over your email with __ and get back to you with any questions.
Thank you so much for your time.
Response #21:
Re: "help", prayers are always appreciated!
Do feel free to write me any time.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #22:
You and your family are always in our prayers. __ said to tell you hi.
We are also having a bit of a rough patch too. __ is having to work in
extremely cold temperatures along with having to travel back and forth
(2 hours one way). This has been hard on all of but as with everything
else we will make it through.
___ is doing so good and we are so thankful for all those blessings. In
these rough times I find that if I can focus on the blessings the rough
stuff doesn't seem so bad. I know it's easy to say and hard to do
sometimes.
Hope you have a wonderful day my friend.
Response #22:
Sure hope that resolves soon. You guys have sure had a "rough patch" for
a long time now!
Good news about ___ though!
Re: "I find that if I can focus on the blessings the rough stuff
doesn't seem so bad. I know it's easy to say and hard to do sometimes."
That's good to remember! Thanks for reminding me too!
I'm keeping you all in prayer on those fronts.
In Jesus,
Bob L.