Question #1:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I was reading the differences between the NLT and NASB Bibles, and came
across these verses.
1. John 3:7 - "So don't be surprised when I say, 'You' must be born
again.
In the NLT Bible there is an * by the word You. Following the note on
the bottom of the page I read this:
* The Greek word for 'you' is plural, and also in Verse 12.
I take the "you" in the plural form to refer to everyone.
The German Bible has the word "ihr",
Just want to validate this with you.
2. In John 3:11, I suddenly realized that the "we" is also speaking of
the triune Godhead, because it is also a plural word; I never realized
this, and I have read it many, many times.
When a person does not know the Gk. like me, I don't know the Greek, it
can make a difference.
Hope you are keeping cool these very hot days.
P.S.
Please pray for my Granddaughter's Mother in Law, who has 4th stage
colon cancer. I have been praying for a while already.
She is a Catholic person all her life, and I have been asking God to
give me the opportunity to speak to her about being Born-Again, which I
doubt she knows about. She is not today under the care of Hospice, so I
am thinking she won't live much longer.
Please also pray for my Granddaughter and her husband who is a wonderful
person. I have been praying for them about being born-again also. I
appreciate your prayers.
I talked with my daughter today and mentioned the tribulation, the
Anti-Christ and the Mark of the Beast which she knows a little bit
about. She is born-again, but I don't know about my granddaughter or her
husband.
Thanks so much,
Blessings to you,
Your friend,
Response #1:
On point #1, that is very interesting. Our Lord actually says in John
3:7 "don't be amazed that I said to YOU YOURSELF (singular: soi),
that YOU ALL (plural: hymas) must be born again/from above". So
the shift from singular to plural is hard for Greek speakers to miss. It
means "For both you and all your unbelieving fellow followers of the Law
who are not accepting Me as Messiah along with everyone else in Israel,
there is only one way to be saved: put your trust in Me".
On point #2, a good observation about John 3:11. "We" is Jesus and the
Spirit in the will of the Father.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness."
John 3:11 NKJV
I have been keeping your family in my daily prayers for you, my friend,
and will continue to do so. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. And
thanks so much for your prayers too!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Dr,
Can you provide meaning around Col 1:24, "what is lacking in Christ's
affliction"?
I will also do some additional research.
I pray all is well with you and your family.
In Christ our Lord
Response #2:
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.
Colossians 1:24 NKJV
Paul is speaking of what HE still is destined to fulfill in suffering for Christ's sake (see the link), that is, in "sharing in the sufferings of Christ" to which all mature believers are called to one degree or another.
But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
Acts 9:15-16 NIV
It's important to remember that all the trials and tribulations that come to us as those who belong to Him are "nothing to be compared to the glories to come".
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Romans 8:18 NKJV
Here's a link to where this passage is explained in more detail:
"What is lacking?"
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
I hope you haven't given up on me, though it must be tempting sometimes.
Response #3:
I haven't given up on you.
Today is posting day and it has been an incredibly difficult week and
weekend wherein I have not even had all Saturday to devote to job #1. I
hope to have time tomorrow to catch up on emails and plan to get back
to you then.
I am keeping you and your family in my prayers.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Thank you Robert, you are a good friend. And a valued one.
The fact that I didn't struggle and gave in, willingly, to those sins
(which is what John says about believers being unable to practice sin,
which I did, all the while going on my way and not feeling guilty)
All the passages about branches not bearing fruit and being cut off and
burned and trees being withered or uprooted... I worry about what those
passages are saying to me. And then I wonder if I don't have confidence
of those sins being forgiven because God is keeping me from having that
because those ones aren't. Isn't saving faith trusting Jesus for the
forgiveness of all your sins? But I'm unsure if God is willing to
forgive those committed again, wilfully after knowing and sitting in
them. Again. Did I have an unpardonable attitude God is unwilling to
forgive?
I don't know how to find the confidence of those sins being forgiven
I really truly want to know the Lord, and to walk closely with Him and
to exercise true repentance every day. I want to love Him with all my
heart, mind, soul and strength and know His forgiveness. More than
anything.
But I'm really unsure if He hasn't turned His face away from me for
good. I really am sorry to God for what I've done, for the sins
committed. It was incredibly stupid and careless of me to 'neglect so
great a salvation'. Now I fear its too late as even when I read the
Bible with hope, the warning and condemning passages cause unsureness or
doubt in me. And God hates doubt. It's really hard and I don't know how
to get to where I wish and pray I could be. It's not that I don't
believe He is willing to forgive me for that, I'm just unsure.
Also, does that make me an unbeliever?
Or unsaved, having faith but lacking saving faith?
You must cringe when you see an email from me.
Response #4:
Again, sorry for the delay. Not only was it posting day yesterday but I
am under heavy pressure here. Thanks for prayer and for patience with me
in being more than a little oblique. Things are in flux. Should know by
the end of this week or next whether things will resolve – and I will
let you know about that. Did get some encouraging news today, so thank
you! Just not "out of the woods" quite yet.
As to 1st John, as one of my seminary professors correctly explained to
us one time, this epistle gives the "Christian job description" in
certain places: Christians don't sin (that is, they SHOULD not). But
that the position that John is saying that anyone who sins is not a
Christian is ludicrous is very clear. If that were so, why would John be
the one – in the same letter – to tell us that we should confess our
sins and that if say we don't have sins to confess that we are making
God out to be a liar (1Jn.1:8-10)? Why would he say the following?
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
1st John 2:1 NIV
So we should NOT sin; but since we DO sin, we need to confess (1Jn.1:9),
and we can take comfort in the fact that the dear Lord who loves us and
bought us free from the bondage of sin with His own blood, His death on
the cross for us, is our Advocate when and if we do sin.
As to branches being cut off in John chapter 15, believers who turn away
from Christ by reverting to being unbelievers are of course cut off.
That is apostasy. The complete death of any spark of faith. In such
cases there is no "once saved, always saved". You have to preserve your
faith intact until the end for salvation. You have to keep believing in
Christ. That is what a believer is in the NT, someone who "is believing"
in Christ – not someone who once did but now does not (Lk.8:13). Here is
Paul explaining precisely what this means:
(19) Now someone may say "Branches have been broken off for me to be grafted in." True enough. (20) They were broken off because of their unbelief, and you stand secure because of your faith. But do not think arrogant thoughts. Rather, have a care. (21) For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. (22) So consider God's mercy and severity. For He is severe towards those who have fallen away, but merciful towards you – if, that is, you continue in that mercy (i.e., continue to belong to Him as a believer). (23) And if they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted back in. For God is able to graft them back in again.
Romans 11:19-23
So it is faith, belief, which is the measure of who belongs to Him and
who does not.
As to "faith but not saving faith" . . . there is no such thing. Do you
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He died for
you? If so, then you are a believer. Look, David murdered and committed
adultery . . . but was still a believer. Peter denied the Lord three
times publicly . . . but was still a believer. Scripture from start to
finish is filled with examples of believers making bad mistakes . . .
but they don't lose their salvation because of sins, even egregious
ones. How is salvation lost? It is only lost if a person STOPS being a
believer. The test of that is whether or not a person believes in Jesus
Christ. People who were believers do in fact sometimes get to the point
where they no longer believe. How does that happen? Various ways.
Often people blame God for bad things that happen in their lives and are
tricked by the evil one into "believing" that He doesn't exist and that
Jesus is not who He says He is. This is the seed that falls on the rocky
ground which wilts and DIES under pressure (the plant sprung from the
seed represents faith). There are plenty of faith plants that get choked
by the temptations of this world and the result is a lack of production
which means little to no reward – but they are still saved because the
plant – faith – does not die.
What is the role of sin? Sin is being disobedient to God and it's
difficult to turn your back on Him and ignore Him so as to do what you
want and reject what He wants without damaging one's faith. But God has
provided a solution. Jesus died for ALL sin so that ALL sin and
unrighteousness is forgiven believers when we confess (1Jn.1:9).
The test of still being a believer and of being forgiven is NOT how we
are feeling emotionally at any given moment. Growing, mature believers
learn to listen to the Spirit and to the truth they have learned and NOT
to their feelings – which may be upset for all manner of reasons, not
the least of which is the evil one prodding them with guilt about the
past.
Believers who are stuck in a cycle of walk, fall, drift, walk, fall
again of course have a hard time. Any child will skin its knees when it
falls and if it is skinning those knees before they've even had a chance
to heal they will be in some serious pain – but that doesn't make them
NOT your child. For our children to become NOT our children would
require such a violent and horrific rejection of us that we don't even
want to contemplate it. That is what being a child of God is like as
well.
Simply put: if you were no longer a believer you would no longer care
about God or about salvation or about Jesus Christ . . . and there is no
way you would be writing me emails about this (or about anything else).
By the way, the recent posting this week is about this issue in part
(and there is plenty more where this came from at Ichthys if you check
through the previous postings).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you and your work. I
think of you often and refer your work to others frequently. I just keep
reading slowly through your two part series because it helps me to keep
things in perspective in the midst of a confused world both inside and
outside of the church.
May the Lord Jesus keep you and bless you always,
Response #5:
Thanks so much for this, my friend!
"Confused" is putting it mildly! But we keep our eyes on the Lord.
Hope to have part/chapter three of
Hebrews out sometime early this summer [n.b.:
chapter seven now available at the
link; link to the Hebrews main page].
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Dear Bob,
I've been reading the section of your site, "The
Study of the Bible", and one question has been coming to mind. I
haven't fully explored the site, but I wanted to ask which version of
the bible you recommend? Up until this point, I've been reading the King
James Version, which is fine, but I did want to eventually read from one
that didn't include things such as any of the longer endings of Mark,
for example. Which version do you think is the most helpful here?
Response #6:
I'll give you some links to where you can find my comments on various
versions and their "pluses and minuses".
KJV is a wonderful version, but the language is challenging for modern
readers (regardless of the sub-version of the KJV we're talking about),
and it does include most of the major false interpolations (see
the link). But it's not as if we have to choose. I make use of a
number of different versions and I encourage readers to do the same,
consulting multiple translations especially when you come across
something that seems problematic to you (because it might be the result
of a rendering unique to the version you're reading).
Here are those links:
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
The fact of English words that are used in the past tense does
sometimes, not seem to me to be appropriate to the subject being
addressed.
Such as in Genesis 1 verse 1 and John 1 verse 1:
"In he beginning" in both of these passages, in addition to word "was".
I know what they mean from the study I have done, but someone who is a
baby Christian perhaps will wonder about these words.
Perhaps it is the English language that has difficulty with being
translated from Hebrew or Greek, with the failure sometimes of the
English not having anything that can really express what the foreign
language is really saying.
I know this is true due to my knowledge of German from my spouse.
Languages have always fascinated me, especially the etymology of the
words that are used.
For example: in the last part of John 1:1, it says: "and the Word was
God", using "was" as in the past tense. Why not say "is" in the present
tense.
In other parts of Scripture, the translators use "man", where person
would be a better word to use.
I have the habit of reading and looking at every single word, I never
skip over anything because I am used to doing that all my life.
Oh well, I guess it is just me, but I know there is an answer for this.
I think I have perhaps missed my calling, which is being an etymologist,
which is what I really should have gone into, because I love it.
but.....
Can you provide an explanation to this dilemma, for I know you have the
answer.
Blessings to you always,
Your curious friend,
P.S. Please pray for my Granddaughter as she has contracted Covid, but
is doing okay. Would much appreciate.
Response #7:
If by "dilemma" you mean translation, that is an art as well as a
science. There is a Latin proverb, translatores tradiutores,
meaning "translators are traitors" – because no translation can hope to
do justice to a work of art, and all translations are by nature flawed.
What seems a good translation to me might not to you, and in any case it
is NOT what the original says . . . because it is a translation, not the
original.
Anyone who knows another language well understands that this will always
be the case, but sadly most American Christians know nothing but English
and have the warped idea that rendering Hebrew and Greek into English is
a matter of a mere mechanical process. In fact, of course, a person
needs 1) to understand Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic in places)
perfectly (and no one is perfect); and, critically, 2) to understand the
meaning of the text being translated perfectly (whereas most translators
who are skilled in their craft don't know nearly as much about the truth
of scripture as you do, e.g.). Add to this the fact that our language
and culture is currently and ever in flux – and more so every day, given
technology and the sad state of our culture. The way I would have
rendered things forty years ago is not how I would do so today in order
to effectively communicate what is in the text – even assuming my own
knowledge as static (which blessedly is not the case).
So the bottom line is that we do the best we can 1) to understand what
the Bible is actually saying, and 2) to communicate that to those
willing to learn, through translation, paraphrase, detailed explanations
and general teaching – whatever it takes. There is no unyielding system
or methodology other than listening to the Spirit and putting our effort
and tools to work diligently and as best we can.
I have two email postings series which deal with these issues. Here are
the links to the most recent of each (you can work backwards from there
if so interested):
If you'd like to discuss some of these passages further, I'm happy to do
so.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
*p.s., I pray for your grandchildren daily; I have said a prayer on this
request now too.
Question #8:
Hello professor,
Is it correct to say that we do not know when the Bible stopped being
read to the common person in a language they spoke? It was probably
after the 9th century, so that it may have been 200-900 years, but we
don't know?
Respectfully,
Response #8:
I'm not sure we can say anything like this definitively because 1) Greeks have
always been able to understand it, more or less (the Greek Orthodox church still
uses THE Greek NT as its Bible); 2) there were many translations throughout the
world in antiquity and it would depend on, say, whether or not, just for
example, the Armenian version ever became non-understandable to Armenians (and
if so, when).
If we are talking about Roman Catholicism, the era of Sardis when that church
died spiritually entirely corresponds to the 12th century. For many European
countries there weren't translations from the Latin version in many cases, but,
for example, the Gothic Bible dates to the 6th century. I'm not certain when
Gothic stopped being a living language.
One would hope that before the western church died that there were individuals
teaching the Word (we know about some of this); if so, no doubt they were
explaining / translating individual passages (that seems certain inasmuch as
there was and remains a great deal of "cultural Christian knowledge" abroad even
among unbelievers).
So it's a language by language situation, and we probably can't recover more
than a minuscule part of what we'd need to know to answer this question with
authority. Might make a good Ph.D. thesis though!
What we can also say is that God has never allowed desire for the truth by any of
His children to go unsatisfied.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I am preparing a study on Abraham, and I have a question on this verse.
So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old
female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
Genesis 15:9 NKJV
What is the reason that the heifer, female goat and ram, had to be
three-years old?
I have an idea, but not sure if that is correct: Does the three-years of
age indicate their strength or length of the covenant that God made with
Abram?
Thanks always for your responses, they help me tremendously.
May God's blessing be with you always,
Your Friend,
Response #9:
Sacrifices under the Law were frequently of "one year old" lambs and
etc. This is the only place where anything "three years old" is
sacrificed (pace commentators who want to make the three bulls at
1Sam.1:24 one three year old bull – that is NOT what the text there
says). This word, the pual participle of the verb meaning "to
triple" ought to mean "tripled" or "made three-fold"; that is what it
means elsewhere. According to Leupold in Expositions of Genesis,
the Targums have "three of each" instead of "three years old". That is
what I get from the Hebrew as well, i.e., "a triple number of heifers,
female goats, and rams".
In any case, whether we have three of each of three types or one of each
of three types three years old, the repetition of the number three is
what is significant. To me, this speaks in the broadest terms of the
Trinity, yet another sign that there were plenty of indications of the
three-fold Persons of the Godhead from the earliest times.
I would be interested in hearing what you've come up with on this. There
are a great number of details in this chapter which are not so easy to
interpret. When it comes to all such symbolism, my policy has been to be
dogmatic only about things which are absolutely clear, and to embrace
symbolism which accords with truths which are clearly taught elsewhere.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
I am glad to share my strategy with you.
When I first looked at Genesis 15 verse 8, and saw the 3 years old for
each of the animals, the thought crossed my mind, is this speaking of
the Trinity, but then I thought that I would ask you to make sure.
Here is what I did for this particular passage of Genesis 15:8,
I connected the sacrifice of each animal and the pigeon and turtledove
with the following scriptures, because I remembered them having read
about the sacrifices before.
Genesis 15:8:21 to Luke 1:26-34 and Luke 2:23-24.
Genesis 15:8 to Psalm 50:5, and Psalm 50:22-23.
Genesis 15:9 to Leviticus 5, 7 and Lev. 8:18-23 and Lev. 8:23-24; and
Lev. 9:1-8; Lev. 4:28 and Lev. 5:6.
Genesis 15:13 to Exodus 3:7-9; and Acts 7:6-7.
Genesis 15:14 to Exodus 14:19-20, and Exodus 14:22-25; and Exodus
12:33-36.
As to laying the pieces on the altar, I thought about the fact that God
is extremely orderly in all things, thus the placement of the sacrifice.
I hope my strategy is correct; I thought about this for quite a while
prior to making a decision I thought was correct.
Your comments would be extremely helpful, and yes it took some praying
and thinking before.
Many blessings to you,
Your friend,
Response #10:
These are great parallels, my friend!
I do think this is one of the main points behind animal and other
sacrifices generally, namely, to teach us about the sacrifice of Christ,
and so to connect up everything that was done under the Law to the grace
of God – similar to remembering our Lord today in eating and drinking
(communion).
Have you got a new group to teach there now again?
Keeping you and your wife in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Many thanks for your concurrence with my strategy.
I revelation this morning as I was studying Genesis 17:9, and the Light
in me went on, so to speak, that I realized the this verse explains the
reason why Abraham knew that even if he sacrificed Isaac as The LORD
told Him, he knew according to this verse, that God would restore Isaac
again. I never saw that before until today. God is sooooo amazing.
Well, I have not had the opportunity to teach another group yet, but I
have been praying that if it is God's will and plan, He will provide the
group or tell me how to go about it, I am sure.
I have no real desire to get involved with another "church", for I have
had too many back experiences and accusations that were untrue thrown at
me.
Besides that, most of them preach, and do not teach, and some of what
they try to teach is certainly unbiblical in a number of areas of God's
Word.
I do have a burning desire to teach, but as yet, no door has been
opened.
I had a brother in the LORD tell me to get involved in a Church and make
friends, but it's the same old stuff again that I don't want to
encounter again.
Sooooo....
I wait.
Many thanks again for your excellent help as always,
Please pray that God will open a door for me to teach, for I have a
burning desire to do so, for His glory.
Many Blessings to you always,
Your friend,
Response #11:
Indeed! We should all make the same deduction Abraham did: if God
promised it, then it will happen, so we have nothing to worry about. In
fact, in Hebrews it reminds us that the Lord not only promised it but
strengthened that promise with an oath, so that "by two unchangeable
things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to
take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged" (Heb.6:18
NIV).
OK, I'll be keeping that in prayer. You have a LOT to offer, my friend.
Here's hoping (and praying) that the Lord will provide some ready ears
for you soon. Meantime, you are demonstrating your faithfulness by
preparing – as well as by refusing to compromise.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Hi Bob,
I'm writing some stuff about Romans 1 at the moment, and have a question
about interpretation.
I started off explaining "the due penalty for their error" in Romans
1:27 simply as death, since death is the consequence of sin (Romans
6:23a, James 1:15, etc.). Physical death, spiritual death,
eternal/second death, and so on.
However, in reading and re-reading the passage, I started wondering if
maybe some of the English versions are too interpretive in their
translation:
Romans 1:27, NLT
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women,
burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men,
and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty
they deserved.
This translation forces the interpretation that the penalty is for the
homosexuality rather than the homosexuality itself being the penalty for
the idolatry mentioned earlier in the passage. It seems to me like verse
24 is basically saying that God giving them over to the shameful
behavior of the homosexuality is itself the "τὴν ἀντιμισθιαν ἣν ἔδει της
πλανης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοις ἀπολαμβανοντες" in verse 27, making the penalty
then a consequence ultimately of the idolatry not the homosexuality?
Perhaps the "within themselves" (ἐν ἑαυτοις) bit might then also tie in
with the "whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body" bit of 1
Corinthians 6:18?
Or is the NLT's way of taking it actually what is correct? What do you
think?
In Him,
Response #12:
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:27 NIV
If I'm reading your email correctly, the question is what is the "error"
because the penalty derives from the error. If the error is the original
error of unbelief and idolatry, then the shame of such behavior is the
penalty; otherwise, the penalty is not specified but can be understood
as cursing in time (and then the eventuality which faces all
unbelievers).
I'm not sure it's necessary to choose between the two. That is to say,
both can be true at the same time and the language admits of that: these
individuals suffer from being drawn into this destructive behavior in
the first place and suffer as well from the cursing such behavior
engenders.
NLT is a highly interpretative translation and clearly wants to take it
the second way and not the first. KJV, on the other hand, and many other
versions leave it more ambiguous – which I think is proper here.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hi Bob,
I suppose, upon reflection, that I perhaps should have phrased it as a twofold
question:
1) What is the error?
2) What is the penalty?
As far as I can see, none of the main translations except the NLT explicitly
identify the error, but instead leave it ambiguous, as it is in the Greek. For
example: https://biblehub.com/romans/1-27.htm
Additionally, none of the translations specifically identify what the penalty
for the error is (that is, make it so it could only be taken as one thing),
leaving that ambiguous in its specifics as well. What I mean by "ambiguous" in
both these cases is that the text does not "force" a single point of view;
multiple interpretations could be made to work textually, even if only one of
them is correct. That makes this a matter of interpretation rather than a matter
of simple translation.
My initial confusion stemmed from wondering "well, which way ought we take it?"
I first pulled up the comparison of versions, wherein I came across the NLT,
which makes that interpretive leap (i.e., identifies the error in view
specifically as homosexuality). Since I couldn't find anything on Ichthys
hitting this specifically, I then did a general internet search for what other
people thought the "error" and the "penalty" were here.
For example, a couple answers on a StackExchange question take things as the
error being idolatry and the penalty actually being the homosexuality itself:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/35806
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/35804
I wasn't 100% convinced (I never lean on that site too much as a formal source,
but do find it occasionally useful to see "what's out there"). And that's when I
emailed you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so that's the background. Questions of clarification:
"If the error is the original error of unbelief and idolatry, then the shame of
such behavior is the [You wrote] penalty; otherwise, the penalty is not
specified but can be understood as cursing in time (and then the eventuality
which faces all unbelievers)."
1) What is "such behavior" in what you write here? Idolatry? Homosexuality? Is
the first if clause here saying "error = idolatry, penalty = shame of
homosexuality"?
2) With regards to the "otherwise", if the error is not the original error of
unbelief and idolatry, does that mean the otherwise = the error is
homosexuality? Or is the otherwise just giving an alternate possibility for the
penalty, not the error?
"I'm not sure it's necessary to choose between the two. That is to say, both can
be true at the same time and the language admits of that: these individuals
suffer from being drawn into this destructive behavior in the first place and
suffer as well from the cursing such behavior engenders."
3) What are the "two things" exactly? As in, in terms of what we are taking the
error and penalty as in either of the two?
4) "They suffer from being drawn into this destructive behavior in the first
place and suffer to from the cursing such behavior engenders" -- this is saying
that the penalty can be both them getting drawn into the homosexuality to begin
with, and also the cursing that such behavior causes? Would we then say that
both errors are in view too: that the idolatry leads to God giving them over to
the shameful behavior of homosexuality, which further leads to additional
cursing on account of this new round of sinful actions? This would be akin to
the virtuous cycle of spiritual growth, but the opposite?
5) I guess I'd never thought about it much before, but I suppose sometimes the
right answer in interpretation is not an "exclusive or", but a "both/and". So
then to word things that way, are you saying that the clause "receiving in
themselves the due penalty for their error" is serving to speak to "all of the
above" = because of their idolatry, God gave them over to homosexuality (verse
24 and 26a); but also because of that shameful behavior of homosexuality,
additional cursing too will follow?
Sorry to make this so verbose.
In Him,
Response #13:
To the extent that the error is "suppressing the truth" (Rom.1:18), the
penalty is "handing them over to a reprobate mind" (Rom.1:28); to the
extent that the error is specifically "abandoning natural relations",
then the penalty is the natural results of such degrading behavior.
So I think what you say in #5 is correct and as close as we can come to
parsing this out without committing to an interpretation which is wrong
by way of unwarranted exclusivity.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hello Bob,
I want to ask a quick question, as I don't know who to ask.
In Hebrews 6:6 the “crucifying afresh” participle appears to be
circumstantial, but i read that if it were accusative (which blue letter
Bible says it is), the gender would have to be neuter (which blue letter
Bible says its not).
Im just trying to clarify something in my head without getting into
doctrine. As i dont know Greek im going off of the info available to me.
Hopefully you don't mind just clarifying that grammatically.
Thank you.
Response #14:
Good to hear from you.
Yes, the participle I do take as circumstantial and in particular as
temporal: "as long as [you] are crucifying . . . ".
This is an accusative plural masculine participle agreeing with the
other participle and forming the subject of the infinitive (where the
rule is for the subject of the inf. to be acc.). So no complicated or
confusing or unusual grammar here.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Thank you so much Bob.
The “rule” of the subject being infinitive is what i was referring to…so
what would be the infinitive subject i guess is my question?
Because I saw it stated that: ACCUSATIVE -“it is found when the verb in
which the participle belongs is impersonal or so used, or when it is an
impersonal expression; in this case the subject of the participle is
usually an infinitive, as it would be if an impersonal verb in some
finite mood was used. This kind of participle is always put in the
neuter gender, modifying a neuter noun, as an infinitive really is.”
But the “crucifying afresh” participle is not neuter, but masculine, so
that made it seem like the rule doesn't work?
In Jesus,
Response #15:
There are dozens of reasons why something might be in the accusative
case (depending on how any particular grammar classifies the actual
linguistic uses: formal grammars describe language, they don't dictate
it).
The participles are accusative masculine and they agree with the
understood subject which in this case is both "people generally" who
do what is described starting in verse four . . . and by implication
"YOU" recipients of the letter to the Hebrews.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Hello Bob,
Got it. I asked only because i read that that was the rule for a
circumstantial participle in a “absolute construction subtype”, perhaps
this is not an absolute construction?
As I studied more on how this works in Greek I realized that a
participle cant be the main verb, so the infinitive “renew again” is the
main verb.
That said, since a “circumstantial participle” modifies a noun, and an
infinitive verb acts as a noun, does that mean that “renew again” is the
noun?
Also, since a present participle happens in time coinciding with the
main verb “renew again”, and “renew again” is already modified by the
aorist participle “fall away”, does that mean that the participle
“crucifying afresh” also has to occur during “fall away” even though
“fall away” seems to be a separate clause from the main verb?
And if not what is the relationship of the 2 participles in relation to
the infinitive?
I hope these questions arent annoying, I'm happy to have someone to ask.
In Jesus,
Response #16:
The accusative absolute is not terribly uncommon in Classical Greek, but
it doesn't occur in the New Testament.
The main verb in Hebrews 6:4-6 is an understood "is" (estin)
coupled with "impossible" (adynaton). As with many languages,
Greek has supplementary infinitives, so that the standard translation
"impossible to renew" is exactly parallel in English and Greek.
Re: "a “circumstantial participle” modifies a noun". That is not
their function, but circ. ptcps. always have some substantive in mind,
expressed or not expressed. Example, "being brilliant" in English would
only betray its attribution by being next to the person/persons or thing
that "is brilliant" (i.e., "Fred, being brilliant, got a perfect score"
– it's only the position that we understand that it's Fred, not the
score, that's brilliant), but in Greek we have case, gender and number
so that there is never any doubt about the attribution, and that is why
Greek can use these sorts of participial phrases EVERYWHERE (though they
are rare in English).
Re: "an infinitive verb acts as a noun". Infinitives ARE verbal
nouns but they do not "act as nouns"; they act as infinitives, mostly
just as in English (in the NT; in Classical Greek there are some
different usages, but that would not apply here in any case).
Re: "what is the relationship of the 2 participles in relation to the
infinitive?" The aorist one lays the predicate, the present one
gives the continuing circumstances. In other words, "If X has happened
(aor. ptcp.), it is impossible for Y to happen (inf.), while Z is still
happening (pres. ptcp.). The translation makes this clear:
(4) For, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, and who have experienced the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, (5) and who have experienced that the Word of God is good, and [who have experienced] miracles foreshadowing the age to come, (6) it is impossible to restore them to [true] repentance after having fallen away [into sin] as long as they keep crucifying the Son of God afresh and exposing Him to open shame.
Hebrews 6:4-6
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hello Bob,
Thanks for the Greek lesson, and the patience. One last question:
Re: "what is the relationship of the 2 participles in relation to the
infinitive?" The aorist one lays the predicate, the present one gives
the continuing circumstances. In other words, "If X has happened (aor.
ptcp.), it is impossible for Y to happen (inf.), while Z is still
happening (pres. ptcp.)."
Being that X and Z both modify the main verb being participles, can Z be
grammatically simultaneously with X, or do these have to be
grammatically separate in function?
In other words, can participle Z (which modifies the main verb) modify
main verb+participle X or main verb+participle X+infinitive as a whole?
Yet in other words, can the present part. give the circumstances of the
aorist part.?
In Jesus,
Response #17:
Re: "can the present part. give the circumstances of the aorist part?"
Each circumstantial participle "colors" the main predicate to which it
is attached. Thus both of these participles provide circumstantial
information to the "It is impossible to renew", not to each other
separately. When, is it impossible to renew? IF 1) falling backwards has
already happened; and 2) WHILE they are STILL "crucifying Christ anew".
In other words, these believers were out of line. Their wrong behavior
had set them on a slippery slope putting them out of fellowship with God
(aorist ptcp.), and there would be no getting back into His good graces
. . . unless they FIRST stopped engaging in their horribly wrong conduct
which they were still perpetrating (present ptcp.).
That certainly makes sense. You can't confess to the Lord your
drunkenness while you are in the process of taking another swig and have the
intention of continuing . . . not and expect to be taken seriously.
This passage is now covered in full at the link:
Hebrews Chapter
Six: Verses Four through Eight
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift."
Matthew 5:21-24 NIV
I'm not bring up reconciliation again, just using this as an example
when asking about the Law and the spirit of the Law.
Jesus points out that the spirit of the Law Thou shalt not kill, is not
to allow anger to fester and hateful outbursts.
He gives in his response "But I say....." a negative whoever is
angry....etc and a positive "...be reconciled"
Given Jesus explained the spirit of the command not to kill, can Jesus
to go and be reconciled also spiritualized depending on the situation.
For example, you want to apologise to X but you suspect that to do so
would result in a negative response, the person may hate you, or swear
or something else, use the police for the wrong reasons. So, could it be
argued the spirit of the command to be reconciled, would not to do that
if it would have the opposite results, and how can we be sure our
judgement even after prayer and discernment would be correct?
Happy New Year
God Bless
Response #18:
When our Lord says "leave your gift at the altar", clearly, there is no longer
any altar and there are no longer any sacrifices (gifts) being placed at any
altar. Therefore that part of His words certainly have to be understood to apply
to us today in a not completely literal way. I would take that part to mean
something like "don't be singing hymns in church if you have unfinished business
of a spiritual nature which is more important". If that unfinished business is
something you should have done for a fellow believer but have not yet done, then
accomplishing the unfinished business is more important.
Our Lord's exact words on that score at Matthew 5:23-24 are general in any case,
so of course we do have to apply spiritual discernment. Example A: twenty five
years ago I didn't say hello to someone I passed in the street; application:
forget that , let it go, confess it to the Lord if you think sin was involved.
Example B: two weeks ago a fellow Christian loaned me $500 so I could pay my
utility bill and not freeze to death, doing so on the understanding that I would
pay him back after payday which was two days away, but I still haven't done it;
application: you should pay up ASAP.
In my view, it's all very much a question 1) what we are talking about in terms
of debt (i.e., the thing your "brother has against you"); 2) who we are talking
about; 3) when it happened; 4) all other pertinent circumstances. The principle
is pretty clear, but the application of it cannot be reduced to a calculus. Each
Christian is responsible to the Lord as to how he/she carries it out in any
given situation.
*The main point our Lord is making with these two verses is not
even about reconciliation but instead it is about avoiding hypocrisy; that is,
thinking that going through the motions of religious ritual is more important
than acting in a godly and righteous way. So this passage is all about avoiding
legalism and instead being genuinely righteous instead of outwardly righteous.
So we really need to avoid submitting this passage to rule-making since that is
exactly the opposite of what our Lord is telling us to do here.
As to the other passage where our Lord equates anger with murder, I understand
this in a similar way to that above. That is to say, it's all well and good not
to murder, but if a person is harboring murder in his/her heart then they are
not clean and pure before God just because they haven't actually physically
murdered someone (yet). Again, this has to be understood in the context of the
legalism of the time wherein the Pharisees in particular were all about outward
appearances, appearing righteous, while inside they were like the insides of
whitewashed tombs, filled with all manner of uncleanness. That is hypocrisy
which is the handmaiden of legalism.
In terms of your last question, I would certainly agree that we need to use
discernment in applying commands such as the one to be reconciled because there
are many "moving parts" both in the original situation and in any attempts to
reconcile – and doing anything ungodly or anything that will not produce peace
in fact (which is the whole objective of any reconciliation) should be avoided
at all costs.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Professor,
I have a couple questions on John 3 if you don't mind.
I've read on the site that you view Nicodemus as trying to flatter Jesus
in v.2. I totally agree with that.
One of my questions is, do you think Nicodemus is trying to play stupid
in v.4, because the question itself is rather dumb. I'm just not sure
exactly why he'd play dumb. Maybe he's embarrassed that Jesus basically
put him down in v.3 and so he asks a stupid question out of desperation?
Further, could you also explain v.5-7, especially in the context of why
Nicodemus asked that question. Like, why does He respond to the question
with "you must be born of water and Spirit...to enter the KOG"?
Also, do you view John 4:46-54 to be a positive or negative example of
faith? Jesus clearly is not happy with the man (v.48), but then it says
that the man and his household believed (v.53). Jesus doesn't exactly
give him what he wants when he heals the child without seeing him, but
the officer believes the statement. What do you think?
Thanks a lot
Response #19:
On "playing stupid", I wouldn't put it that way. The sort of
argumentation Nicodemus engages in with our Lord was typical and remains
typical of Talmudic analysis, so I think Nicodemus was responding as
many a Yeshiva student might even today. Also, the word translated
"again" is the Greek anothen and equally means "from above" as
well as "again". This conversation may well have taken place in Greek
(since that was the lingua franca of the time); if so, the ambiguity of
also meaning "from above" (i.e., through divine agency) might have been
lost on him. Because, after all, being "born again" is only possible
because we are born through God's agency, the agency of the Holy Spirit
– just as our Lord says in context: "So it is with everyone born
of the Spirit." (Jn.3:8;
see the link).
On why our Lord answers as He answers, our Lord frequently answered what
needed to be said rather than giving direct answers which specifically
matched the questions asked. Nicodemus needed to know how to be born
again/from above, how to be saved. There was no spiritual point in our
Lord playing this debating game with him, so He cuts right to the chase,
so to speak.
As to faith or no faith in the John 4 narrative, I think you have it
right. What we have is not an example of "great faith" but "sufficient
faith" for our Lord to respond as He did for this man. For a very
similar situation see the pericope of the healing of the boy at
Matt.17:14–21; Mk.9:14-29; Luke 9:37–42 .
Wishing you a very merry Christmas, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Professor,
Okay, I have a couple more questions actually.
"Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For
as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to
have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he
is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when
all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who
have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what
is evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge
only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself
but him who sent me. If I testify about myself, my testimony is not
true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his
testimony about me is true."
John 5:25-32 NIV
In 5:25, do you think the "dead" refers to the physically dead or
spiritually dead (but alive), or both? The "and now is" in the verse
makes it seems like it's regeneration (so spiritual rebirth) at present,
but the "an hour is coming" seems to refer to the resurrection,
especially because v.27 talks about judgment.
With v.28, Jesus is expecting a reaction from the Jews, that could be
along the lines of, "what will happen to those that didn't know about
the Son (Abraham, David, etc.)?" perhaps? Or maybe that's not really a
reasonable implied reaction.
In 5:31-32, do you take Jesus' first statement to be affirming that He
Himself can't testify to Himself, or do you think he's acknowledging
what the Jews are probably thinking in that moment: kinda like, "If I
alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true (in your eyes)"?
Thanks a lot
Merry Christmas!
Response #20:
On John 5:25, the "now is" bit is NOT part of scripture (it's an
interpolation). Our Lord is talking about the resurrection – which, of
course, will take place at different times for the saved and unsaved,
but all in the future for both. Clearly then, physical death is what is
solved by resurrection, but spiritual life – or death – is what
determines which resurrection a person will be a part of. This is all
explained in more detail later by our Lord in vv.28-29. The reaction
desired is saving faith as a response to these truths.
On John 5:31ff., our Lord is refuting the claim of the Pharisees et al.
that He is not to be believed because His testimony is not true; that
might be the case, our Lord's words imply, IF it were only Him talking.
As it is, the Father has testified on His behalf through the
unprecedented miracles our Lord was given to perform (and also
occasionally audibly: Jn.12:29). And John likewise testified that Jesus
was the Messiah (and John was held as a prophet by all, even by these
unbelievers if only to avoid giving offense).
Merry Christmas and a happy 2023, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Professor,
Okay, let me clarify a little bit. If "and now is" isn't in the text,
then the "dead" in v.25 must refer to physically dead believers,
correct? Also, it probably doesn't refer to then alive unbelievers who
convert, because the "hour is coming"? That would seem to contradict the
implication in the previous verse that the time to believe Jesus is now,
not at a coming hour.
With v.31, I think I understand. But could you take it to be "If I
testify of Myself, [you wouldn't regard my testimony as legitimate]"?
Maybe that's why he referenced the Father and John? That would make
sense, because later on he could basically be saying, "Even if I am
testifying about Myself, My testimony is true [nonetheless]" (8:14).
Also, sorry, one more question. In 12:12-16, how exactly do His
followers know and think that his moment to establish Himself as king
had come, especially considering His disciples did not understand
(v.16)? Why wouldn't they have done this the previous two (or three?)
times he was in Jerusalem? Do you think there is sort of an apotheosis
here with His many miracles and having just raised Lazarus from the
dead? Maybe his followers are picking up more and more about who Jesus
is as time continues?
Actually, I do think that it's maybe a climax after Lazarus'
resurrection, as v.17 suggests that a lot of His followers testified
about His raising Lazarus from the dead. Aside from the disciples lack
of faith, do you think that this passage shows that this following did
indeed believe He was the Messiah, or would you still say that there was
superficial or lacking faith?
Let me know about this
Thanks for your responses.
Response #21:
1) John 5:25 is referring to the resurrection but from a foreshortened
perspective which blends all echelons of the resurrection into one just
as Daniel 12:2 does (this is typical of prophecy;
see
the link). In other words, our Lord is saying that all will be
resurrected in the future, but not all will enter into life, only
believers. So this applies to all humanity, those already deceased at
that point, those currently alive, and those not born yet. It's a
universal principle: there is a resurrection of the spiritually living
and the spiritually dead. Better by far to be part of that "first
resurrection" (Rev.20:5-6). We happen to know from the further
information given by the Spirit to the apostles later on that the first
resurrection has three phases: "Christ, the firstfruits [accomplished];
then, when he comes, those who belong to him [the Church]; Then the end
will come [millennial believers; followed by the resurrection of all the
spiritually dead]" (1Cor.15:23-24).
2) That is the way I understand it (if I'm understanding you correctly).
3) This was, of course, not the moment for the establishment of the
kingdom – that will only happen at the second advent. But the majority
of contemporary Jews wanted the crown of the Messiah without the cross.
They didn't accept the necessity of the Messiah to die for the sins of
the world, having turned a blind eye to the truth and being interested
only instead in what they wanted God to do for them (not what they
needed God to do for them). Cf.:
The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this ‘Son of Man'?”
John 12:34 NIV
I don't see much evidence of "learning" . . . not much even from the
twelve at this point (only eleven of whom were believers). The gospel of
John in particular does make it clear that the two exceptional miracles
of raising Lazarus and opening the eyes of the man blind from birth were
catalysts both of the crowd's enthusiastic reception of our Lord and the
coming to a head of the opposition against Him from the rulers. And,
after all, this same crowd would be calling for His crucifixion a few
days later.
So whatever they thought, their faith, if any existed, was shallow –
like the seed planted on the rock that perishes with the first hot rays
of the sun.
Wishing you a blessed 2023, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #22:
Hello!
Thank you for the speedy response. How are you doing?
The past months have been a shift as I'm learning more how the Lord
doesn't need me to self-engineer martyrdom. I need to trust Him, seek
Him and His truth, believe it, and apply it.
I believe a misunderstanding on my part that complicated matters is " if
it's sin to you, it's sin"; it's one thing if I, for example, believe
(albeit wrongly) the Lord says we can't wear the color blue in His Word
so I think it's a sin. It's another to know it doesn't say that or not
believe that it does, but to just "feel" or "decide" it's wrong. That
just seems a personal preference, though I don't know [yet] how to
assert this Biblically.
Thank you so much for your ministry. It's exciting to come out from
under limiting legalistic beliefs.
Response #22:
It does my heart good to hear you making progress here, my friend!
In terms of James 4:17, "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does
not do it, to him it is sin" (NKJV), rightly understood, this is
essentially what the Lord had also said:
"And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare
himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes,
shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him
much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they
will ask the more."
Luke 12:47-48 NKJV
In other words, James 4:17 doesn't mean "if you're not sure, then it's
sin"; not at all. It means, "if you didn't know it was wrong, you have
an excuse that mitigates the punishment, but if you DID know and did it
anyway, then the Lord takes that into account in disciplining you". And
of course we hasten to add that Jesus is our Advocate when we sin
(1Jn.2:1-2), our High Priest to whom we can always go and receive
forgiveness when we confess whatever we may have done (1Jn.1:9).
If you're thinking of Romans 14:23, that passage actually says something
different, namely, that we need to act in faith and not do things we do
not have the faith to do because of immaturity. So all this is really a
mandate to grow and trust the Lord – exactly as you are doing.
By the way, if you haven't already seen it, I just posted the second
installation of the Hebrews series:
Hebrews chapter one [chapter
seven now available at the link].
In Jesus,
Bob L.