Old Testament Interpretation XVII

Question #1:

Hello--I have a question about Isaiah 9:6, where it says that the Messiah is "eternal Father." A Mormon is claiming this is modalism. I told him it means more like "father of eternities" based upon a study I did years ago, from a British scholar who was an expert on Isaiah. I also pointed out that Scripture never confuses the Persons in the Godhead, so this verse must be interpreted in light of what the entire body of Scripture says. But I was wondering if there is anything in the Hebrew that supports "father of eternity." Is it an idiom? What?

Thanks again for your help. God bless you.

Response #1:

Here's something of mine on this from an Ichthys posting:

I translate the Hebrew phrase here "Father of Eternity". This refers to our Lord Jesus in the sense of Him being the One who brings on eternity by fulfilling the Plan of God. "Originator of Eternity" or "Begetter of Eternity" would perhaps avoid possible confusion, but all of these titles refer to the Messiah, our dear Lord Jesus.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Thanks! But if your translation is correct, why do most Bibles have everlasting Father in this verse? Does the Hebrew allow for Father of Eternity?

Response #2:

Hebrew 'abhi 'adh (אֲבִי עַד) is a construct phrase, that is, it means/is translated very literally "X of Y". Hebrew is replete with these phrases, and translating them correctly is probably half the problem in producing a good rendition of any lengthy OT passage, especially in poetry. In English, we have limited the way we use our default genitive "of"; so for example we now avoid objective / subjective genitives on account of the possibility of confusion. "The price of the senator": does it mean "the price the senator has to pay" or "the price to buy the senator's help"? There are many more possible genitive relationships in Greek and Latin, and these are even more frequent in Hebrew since Hebrew lacks the extensive case system of those two languages and uses the construct as we have here to make up for it (at least that is one way to look at it).

I take the word "father" here in semi-verbal sense as in "the one fathering", and "eternity" as the essential direct object. This sort of thing is common enough in Hebrew. The point is, there is a relationship between the two nouns and "eternal father" and "one fathering eternity" cannot both be correct. Since these verses are taking about the Messiah, it's not the former, not the latter. Also, 'adh (עַד) is a NOUN, not an adjective, AND "father" comes first, not second. So my version is far closer to being literal – and has the advantage of avoiding giving the false impression often received when reading this passage without help.

Translators often mess things up when, for whatever reason, they do not really understand the text they are translating for whatever reason. This passage is all about Jesus Christ – and that has to be understood in order to produce a valid translation.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Hey Chief,

The next article I intended to get out in April, overtaken by a lot of life's stuff, you can find at
https://emethbiblestudies.org

Hope you are blessed with: The Sojourning Seed--Birth of a Race.

In Him who fills all in all

Response #3:

First question: did you get the 4th of July email I sent you (no comment necessary; just having some problems with my email server).

As to your survey article, I think this provides a valuable resource (I'm doing something similar though much shorter for Acts in the process of producing BB 6B on Ecclesiology).

One question however. You use Yeshua for the Lord (I get that, even though I have issues with it), but you are also using the term "Shakinah Glory" a good deal here (never seen it spelled with two "a's" before). While Yeshua does occur in scripture (Joshua, e.g.), this other term does not. So I'm not sure what you mean by it, in spite of the brief explanation.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #4:

I have learned more and more to not presume to know anything of an inscrutable God who can do anything, but just to keep it simple. So,

Except for the Spirit descending as a dove at Jesus' baptism, I think Ol' Man Thieme got it right, the Son being 99.9% of the times the manifest person of the Godhead, if I understand your contemplative interrogatives. But also though shekinah appears feminine, Exo 40.35 encapsulates both MISHKAN or tabernacle or place of the dwelling which is masculine, and KABOD or glory or outward showing also masculine. Anyway, you can take a second online at jewishencyclopedia.com and see what orthodox judaism says about the shekinah if you have time.

Regarding the name, Yeshua, I don't have to tell you, comes from the word for Salvation, eg. Gen. 49.18 but one citation I hang my hat on is the hebraism found in Mt 1.21:"...you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." If they were speaking Hebrew, which I know it a huge argument...myself taking a plain reading of Ac 22.2 in which Paul spoke to the hoi polloi, as the ol' man used to say...then, Joseph would have heard this,...call his name, YESHUA, for it is He who will YASHA' His people from their sins..." as in Ex 14.30

Response #4:

The verb is shachan. But the way people who use this word (I'm not one of them) spell the term used for the concept is shekinah. Your way or their way, it's still feminine – which I see as a problem. Also, what does it mean, exactly? Does it mean Jesus? Then say Jesus. Does it mean the Father or the Spirit? Then why not say so? This is a mystical word – one I don't find in the Bible (I believe it has a late Kabbalah-related derivation).. Even Solomon understood the facts on this issue:

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!"
1st Kings 8:27 NKJV

Q.E.D.

On Yeshua, maybe this is what He was called at home. Did they speak Aramaic? What was the vocalization, exactly? We don't know because it's not in the Bible. In the Bible He's called Iesous which is brought into English as Jesus. Peter, John and Paul – writing in the Spirit – call Him Iesous. That's good enough for me.

Hope you're getting a good rest prior to the new school year. Time is ticking out here and there's plenty to do.

Your pal in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5:

I did and just read it; very good, my kind of simple...

I'm retired now, I think I'm coming to Cantucky soon to sit down and shoot the bull for about 4 hours straight...probably not but we could do considerable damage anyway.

Yeshua is what the messianic jews say Jesus was actually called when he was on earth by his family, the Hebrew for "salvation", isn't that right?

And I was using Shekinah which is used a lot in literature, but I went to "Shakinah" because I thought the correct spelling of a temporary dwelling place or way or mishkan was rooted in the verb, shakan.
Tell me where I'm wrong on that...as Bill O'Reilly used to say before he got attacked and removed.

Response #5:

This was simple? I'll take your word for it.

1) I agree with you and the Col. that Jesus Christ as the revealed Person of the Trinity is the One who is appearing in the Old Testament – He is the representative of the Father even if He is representing Himself as the Father. Classic passage on that is John 12:41 where we find out that God in Isaiah chapter six was a Christophany of Jesus Christ.

My beef is with using mystical Kabbalistic terms I don't find in scripture – because since they don't really mean anything they can "mystically" suck up whatever the person who hears them is feeling at the time. So if Christ appears to Abraham, I call it a Christophany. But if someone tells me it's "the Shekinah Glory" (however spelled), I'm not listening to the lesson anymore but scratching my head and wondering what that is and what that means – and not finding it in my Bible when I go there for help.

It's true that in Exodus 40:34ff. we do find "the Glory of the Lord" filling the tabernacle (this happens on other occasions too of course) and that the word tabernacle comes from the same root as Shekinah does (apparently). But for me that doesn't justify using a non-biblical phrase which skews away from the biblical meaning and is open to all manner of odd interpretations. If YOU know what it means, that's fine (I'm not sure I do; Jewish encyclopedia wasn't really helpful there either). But if in explaining precisely WHAT it means you read people Exodus 40:34ff., and they understand that passage, why do you need a special term that lends itself to misinterpretation?

When I read your piece, the references to Shakinah I found confusing. When you write "The Shakinah Glory appeared when...Abram became a son of ninety-nine", I would have said "God" or "the Lord appeared"; scripture actually says "the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision" (Gen.15:1 NIV). The Lord speaks to Abraham and the torch appears. Which one is the Shekinah Glory again? What does that mean again? How is that different from God/the Lord? Must be some special significance I'm missing here. Did you say "simple"? I simply don't quite understand.

2) As your quote says, Mary is told "you shall call His name 'Jesus'". Of course in the actual Bible in the actual Greek it's Iesous. We generally transliterate this name to "Jesus"" – which in turn is a transliteration of Yeshuah. But if it were important NOT to transliterate as all translations do, then wouldn't the Spirit have had Yeshuah written instead? I'm not advocating for saying Iesous. I just don't understand why some folks feel they need to say Yeshuah. If we were speaking Modern Hebrew in Israel, OK. But we're not. The practice strikes me as affected and, again, bordering on the mystical. As if there were some special power in saying "the Name" one way instead of another (and in that tradition of course both things are a big problem as you well know). Or more to the point, that the rest of us "just don't get it" and are somehow second class as a result of saying "Jesus".

In the early Church Age, escaping from the Law-dominated orbit of traditional Judaism was a vital part of the transition from one dispensation to the other – as the most traditionally Jewish of all the apostles makes clear in his epistles time and again. No doubt Jerusalem and the temple had to be destroyed at least in part for that reason. I know there is a great deal of "return to the roots" Messianism out there these days because I have to deal with the fallout all the time. It rarely results in anything good and far too often produces an anemic understanding of the Trinity to the detriment of the deity of Christ. Not saying you are guilty of this, but it is an issue out there. So in my experience, these "name" things have done a whole lot of harm, and I don't see the least bit good in them (or any crying demand to do them; quite the opposite).

I don't mean any of this to take away from the fine work you are doing, my friend! These are valuable productions and I'm happy to link them at Ichthys (which I do).

Your old (and getting ever older) friend in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #6:

Ok ok, man, are you are a bit tight – but that's; good someone's got to do it.

You call it mystical, being part of the messianic movement on Saturday where Gentile Christians are...uh hum, a bit second class or non-Jewish if I do say so myself--my wife for one not putting up with it, and then going to your average non-denom evangelical church [which by the way meets in the same structure--works if you can find it] can run across lessons in mysticism, flexibility, and a number of other things. I regularly...[well] not correct, but might engage the pastor and rabbi by email or text after their message on points of theology or what I perceive to not be handling accurately some passage whether I think they want to or not, and don't get me started about...believing in Jesus but not meaning it so the poor joe schmo wasn't really saved in the first place.

p.s. I'm now 65 on medicare, paying over 1,000 bucks me and the fam a month for health insurance, and looking for a job again but I'm pretty sure I'm walking closer to the LORD.

My brother sent this to me, meant to tell you too. My other brother, Naval Academy Grad '64, died as I think I mentioned Jul 66. Anyway, he had a classmate, Charles Krulak. Name ring a bell...only the 31st commandant of the marine corps, 1995-99! My brother's widow keeps in touch with my sister. She had some church function where the retired general spoke and remembered playing lacrosse with my brother. Had I known that I wouldn't have put in for his aide de camp to get out of Parris Island or getting lost in the Philippines.

Have you seen this? The poem was written by an anonymous Marine Corps officer:

"THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI”
We're the battling boys of Benghazi,
No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
Just a fiery death in a blazing hell
Defending our country we loved so well.

It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,
Fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.
We pulled twenty countrymen from the jaws of fate
Led them to safety and stood at the gate.

Just the two of us and foes by the score,
But we stood fast to bar the door.
Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,
So we fought and we fought and we fought 'til we died.

We gave our all for our Uncle Sam
But Barack and Hillary didn't give a damn.
Just two dead Seals who carried the load
No thanks to us...we were just "Bumps In The Road”.

Response #6:

GREAT poem!

Didn't know you'd lost a brother, my friend. Vietnam? The Marine officer who led me to Col. Thieme's ministry lost his USMC aviator brother just after I left Okinawa (he buzzed our bn. H.Q. on Okie one day while he and I watched admiringly; disappeared in his Harrier off Cherry Point the next year I believe).

You got lost in the P.I.? Did you take your platoon with you? I've got nothing to say there. It's a good thing we were at peace when I was in. I would have done a lot worse than just getting lost and caused many deaths . . . on our side.

On the other issue, here's a verse for you that explains how I see it (whatever terminology one wants to use):

Then the LORD appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent.
Deuteronomy 31:15 NIV

What sort of job you looking for? I thought you were teaching junior high school.

I'm appalled that with "Obama care" and "Cal care" (or whatever they're calling it), it costs that much! Just one more reason why my plan is to retire feet-first.

Your pal in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #7:

Dear Teacher

Thank you very much for helping me with that. I remembered an old email from you with recommendations for books I could read on history, and I have downloaded them now. They include Emil Schürer's volumes on "The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ". That's what I'm reading now.

In Volume 1 Part 1, the author talks about a "Priestly Code." He is not referring to the notion that the Pentateuch was written by different people with different agenda, is he?

Your student in Jesus Christ

Response #7:

Yes I believe that is what he means.

Schürer is good on non-spiritual matters regarding what we know of the history of Israel; I wouldn't pay any attention to him on spiritual issues – sort of like W. Walker's "History of the Christian Church" which is likewise "out to sea" when it comes to the actual truth of scripture but which is a pretty good treatment of the secular details of the history of the church-visible otherwise.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #8:

Dear Teacher

Thank you for the update as well. I will pray for them concerning the new development. It's possible that they are hoping that marriage will make what change they see permanent, but that is not a very reliable thing. I'll pray, however, as I said.

I have been praying for your classes and will continue to. I know that, as you said, the Lord has it all well in hand.

I just got to 1 Chronicles in my daily reading, and I'm rather stumped.

1. In 2:9, 21, 24, Hezron's son's include Jerahmeel, Ram, Chelubai, Segun, and Asshur. It seems to me that 2:18 and 2:42 makes it clear that Chelubai is Caleb. Is this correct?

Response #8:

Thanks for your prayers, my friend. Good news on the __ front today; I'm still waiting to hear about my own situation. Things are getting close too. But I remember they terminated my colleague just before classes started. I'm not in danger of that, and I do hope that I can just bump through this year until we get a new dean in.

On the genealogy questions, I think you have as much chance of figuring these out correctly as I do, my friend. It's not my strong point, partially through lack of appropriate interest. I deal with these matters only when it's necessary (i.e., when figuring out an important chronology or prophecy).

1. I think that's correct. It's not uncommon for Hebrew names to have alternatives and multiple spellings.

Question #9:

2. In 2:17, Amasa's father is Jether the Ishmaelite, but in 2 Samuel 17:25, his father is Ithra the Israelite. I take for granted that both are the same man. To account for the name change and the change of nationality, I consider that Deuteronomy 23 gives provisions for including a foreigner in the records of Israel as an Israelite, so perhaps the man was inducted into Israel and thus entered the records as an Israelite and he may have taken a Hebrew name in the process or else, as the footnote for the verse in 2 Samuel for the NIV go, Ithra was just a variant of Jether. The footnote also says that some Septuagint manuscripts have "Ishmaelite" or "Jezreelite." I'm not sure that those manuscripts are correct. In the face of Deuteronomy 23, it doesn't seem necessary to me to have that there. My impression is that the Septuagint manuscripts that do sought to correct what was originally there for consistency. Am I correct about this, Sir?

Response #9:

2. See #1. There are lots of reasons for alternative names. I wouldn't worry about the LXX. There's no accounting for what the Septuagint does.

Question #10:

3. In 2:18, Caleb is said to have Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon by Azubah, and by Jerioth. I assume that Azubah and Jerioth are the same person. Am I correct about that?

Response #10:

3. It's possible; the text can be read either way.

Question #11:

4. In 2:19, Caleb marries an Ephrath who gives him Hur who becomes the father of Uri and grandfather of Bezalel (presumably the same one who had the special gift to design and build the things of the Tabernacle under Moses). This is in addition to the earlier named sons in 2:18 - Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon.

In 2:42 though, his firstborn is Mesha who wasn't named in the 2:18. So, I'm wondering if Mesha may be another name for Jesher.

In 2:46 he has a concubine named Ephah (a name that seems similar to Ephrath to me) who has Haran, Moza, and Gazez for him. I've wondered is Ephah is Ephrath, and Haran is a variant of Hur.

In 2:48, another concubine gives Caleb Sheber, Tirhannah, Shaaph, and Sheva.

Then in 2:47, there is a Jahdai whom I can't find anywhere. Who is this Jahdai? Is it another name for someone already in this list?

Response #11:

4. These are also all possible. I don't find anything else about Jahdai.

Question #12:

5. In 2:31 in NASB, Sheshan is said to have a son Ahlai, but in 2:34, he has no sons, only daughters. Who then is Ahlai? The NIV reads in 2:31, "Sheshan was the father of Ahlai" without stating whether Ahlai was a son or daughter. That would allow me to consider that Ahlai is a daughter, probably the same one who was given to his Egyptian servant Jarha in marriage. But is that correct? The NIV is easier to accept, but I wondered if perhaps Ahlai was another name for Jarha and that he was reckoned as Sheshan's son through marriage. What is the correct situation here, Sir?

Response #12:

5. It says "sons" in v.31. It's possible that his son died young.

Question #13:

6. In 2:50, we have sons of Hur, but there is no Uri or Bezalel among them. That leads me to wonder if it is the same Hur in 2:19 and these names here are additional information about him. Or is this another situation like Jahdai?

I'm trying to make a family tree to make the picture clear in my mind, but it's hard to track the information given the above questions.

Your student in the Lord

Response #13:

6. It's possible.

I've heard tell of some people actually memorizing the entire KJV Bible. This chapter must have taken a minute!

Hope you are doing well, my friend.

Keeping you and your families in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s. Just heard that my upper Latin classes were NOT cancelled!!! Thanks for your prayers!!!

Question #14:

Dear Teacher

Thank you so much for the answers and for the updates. It was a joy to see that our Lord has continued to look out for you in spite of my weakness in prayer for you. I continue to pray for you, but I know that there is plenty of room to pray better and more consistently. So I am very glad to hear all your news, Sir.

As for memorizing the KJV, when I was little and in Sunday School, I was tasked to represent my age group with two other children with a recitation from memory of 1st Timothy. I couldn't memorize any part of it at all. My head has just never worked that way. I never remember things exactly as I see or hear them, only as interpretations and connections to other things. So, whenever I hear of feats like that, I marvel. I just can't imagine how it's done. That is why I have to see things in my head to understand them, so I draw diagrams sometimes, and have conversations or debates to peel back layers and dissect everything and see if I can see how it all works. It's one reason that I remain very grateful for you. I never knew a teacher before you (and certainly not since I met you, although ___ does exceptionally well too) who could actually walk me through things in conversations about the Bible like that.

I am fighting everyday, so I am well, thank the Lord. And she and I are getting so much better at fighting together. It is an enormous joy to see that she is staying in the fight and getting better at it too.

I thank you very deeply for your prayers, Sir. I continue to lean heavily on them. And I in turn continue to pray for you.

Response #14:

My memory works more like yours. I can remember concepts; word-for-word has always been difficult for me. I don't think it's hurt me in this ministry (or in other things). In fact, I think it may actually be a kind of blessing because it has made me think more carefully about what I'm reading / considering. At least that's the silver lining!

I do promise to keep up the prayer for you and your situation, my friend.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #15:

Dear Teacher

Thank you for your answers, Sir. I was too tired to think throughout yesterday, so I couldn't even reply your email. But I'm better now. I went running the day before yesterday and this morning again. It was really great on Wednesday: I felt very invigorated after it. Today, I was tired, but more awake. The exercise is helping. It may even be helping with my sleeping too, so that I get more rest when I sleep. In all, I feel better. I haven't had the pains in my chest and left arm again, although I have had some weird sensations in the arm sometimes. The pains now are associated with running. There's one running down from my right hip to my right knee and then down my right leg. I felt it more acutely on my way back as I cooled down. Although I've had the weird feeling in my right hip for a long time now, feeling it sometimes but not others, it may have to do with my running form. If I make some adjustments there and it continues, I'll see what else I should do about it.

I haven't been to see the doctor yet. I will in the coming week. I planned my expenses this month so that I will only have new money to spend from the middle of the month after the expenses at the beginning of the month.

I remembered what I forgot to ask you earlier. It even had to do with last Sunday's posting, which reminded me of it when I read it. I had been asked about Proverbs before, and I had also thought about it too sometimes. Recently, it occurred to me that Proverbs may be more perfectly "applicable," for want of a better term, to the Millennium than to this period in time.

At the present time, because this world is in the evil one, it makes sense that, for example, children will not always, or even perhaps often, turn out how they are raised, if they are raised by believing parents. I suspect that this would still be the case in the Millennium, but in light of Zechariah 13:2-6, it may be significantly reduced. Perhaps a considerably smaller percentage of children will turn out different than they were raised then, since even then free will will still exist in the unresurrected population. Other general rules too, like hard work and diligence will be rewarded with desirable, enviable results, will operate the same too, I think. The exceptions might be when a given nation rebels in sending their representatives to Jerusalem when they should and suffer a drought as a result, in spite of any hard work on their part.

What do you think of this, Sir?

Your student in the Lord

Response #15:

I'm glad you're feeling somewhat better, but the leg/hip report also has me a bit worried. I have mixed success dealing with MDs as I've said. I have no idea what the state of the profession is in your country (or how expensive it is to get some help). I will pray for you about this. I certainly hope that it is just a mechanical adjustment issue. They do matter. I think now that part of my "issue" was running in worn out shoes for too many years (I wear them down on the outside of the heel and that increases the cant with wear). I don't do that anymore, but the damage is slow to heal (blessedly it is getting gradually better – God is good!).

On Proverbs, I would shy away from that interpretation, even though what you say is certainly true. A proverb by definition is a "truism" about life and living life. These are godly ones. But of course in "the world" there is almost no principle of application (which is what life and living life is) which does not have its exception. "The early bird gets the worm!" – meaning, if you want to be successful, get up early in the morning and hit things hard as can be right from the very start. But there are people who seem lazy to the rest of us who through their own unique approaches have been able to be very successful, while others who went at it from before day break have had little success. But that doesn't make the proverb untrue. It is indeed true most of the time for most people. Q.E.D.

Keep plugging away, my friend! That's the way to get the rewards you are seeking.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #16:

Hi Dr. Luginbill,

So I was doing a survey of what written sources there are for ancient history (say Alexander the Great and before him), and it appears there is very very very little. This made me so angry; how can atheists go around acting all intellectually superior when they have NOTHING. Literally. All we have is a few inscriptions out of context here and there and the Bible. But they throw away the only real written resource, in exchange for a mountain of supposition/assumptions/guesses, and they think THEY are smarter and that we have 'blind faith'? It is the other way around, no? Or do I have it wrong and am missing written sources? I thought since you are so knowledgeable on history and the ancients you might know or be able to point me in the right direction.

I also bought a few survey history books to round myself out a bit, with historical maps. Hopefully that might help me when the Bible talks about historical things, and our Family's story.

"Them: Science has proof.

Me: Oh yes, it had proof disabled (such as me) and Irish and black people were inferior, that the N Rays were a real thing, that the Evolution's Piltdown Man was a thing, I mean I can run down a list..."

I had a book "Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science" that did a good job of tearing down that idea I had that they had intellectual superiority. I am not crazy right? Not in my head I mean?

May I ask how you are doing? I hope you are well and not overworked.

Response #16:

When it comes to Greek history, the evidence is far less than we would like it to be. The New Testament is far better documented by far – not even close – than any other ancient Greek text except for Homer (and all those mss. and papyri are far further removed in time from the original than is the case with the NT).

That said, we have what we have. Alexander is a good case in point. We have Arrian, Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus – which are all later than Alexander by centuries. They used earlier sources, some of which were contemporary. It's the ancient historian's job to sort out and sort through the evidence (including inscriptions, fragmentary mentions – of which there are plenty), papyri and archeological remains to come up with a balanced picture of "what happened". The results are mixed, but in Alexander's case we know a good deal – some of which is probably accurate. The Bible, on the other hand, is ALL true.

I'm doing well – thanks for asking? I do keep you in my prayers.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #17:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

The two verses, Acts 3:23 and Deut. 18:19, do not reflect the same words that Moses spoke to the Israelites.

In Acts 3:23 Luke quotes Moses as saying: "Everyone who fails to listen to that prophet will be removed from the people and destroyed" CJSB version. CJSB is the Complete Jewish Study Bible that I have.

In the "Christian Standard Bible it is quoted: " 23 And everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be completely cut off from the people.

In the NASB this verse reads: " 23‘And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deut. 18:19 "Whoever doesn't listen to my words, which he will speak in My name, will have to account for himself to me.
CJSB

Deut. 18:19 "19 I will hold accountable whoever does not listen to my words that he speaks in my name."
CSB

Deut. 18:19 "19‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him."
NASB

I see a conflict in what Moses says in the OT, verses what Luke attributes to Moses in the NT. The CJSB and NASB says this person will be "utterly destroyed" and "destroyed".

The CSB says: "completely cutoff from the people".

This is very confusing. Did the translator lose some of the meaning from Hebrew to Greek?

I don't know what the Hebrew really says not what the Greek really says. But I would think that Luke would speak exactly what Moses says in the OT ?

Appreciate very much for your input into this dilemma.

Thanks so much as always. Endeavoring always to get the truth. Blessings to you always for your great help.

Your friend,

Response #17:

The issue of translation of Hebrew quotes and/or allusions in the NT is a very complicated one. If it would profit from a doctoral thesis – or several.

A couple of points. Peter is speaking to a crowd extemporaneously. The Holy Spirit guarantees us that this is what he said in full sense (although it is doubtful that he was speaking in Greek). But the book of Acts is a historical book and we have to approach it's interpretation differently, therefore, than we do for example the epistles (see the link). When the people say of Herod "the voice of a god not of a man" (Acts 12:22), we certainly don't imagine that they are correct, even though this is what they say and even though it is in the Bible; we also don't imagine that they are right in saying this, just because it is recorded as having happened. Peter was an apostle and at this point (i.e., Acts 3:23) empowered by the Holy Spirit.

We are promised that if we are called upon to give a defense before a legal tribunal (during the Great Persecution), that we don't have to worry because it will be the Spirit speaking, not us (Matt.10:19; Lk.12:11). But that does not apply to everything all believers say at all times, or even to what apostles say in the book of Acts. When James tells Paul to sponsor some young men who had a vow, he was in the wrong so what he advised was wrong; when Paul tells Ananias, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" (Acts 23:3), he quickly repents of it when he learns he is the present high priest (Acts 23:5), and offers a good scriptural reason for his change of opinion.

The speeches of the apostles in the book of Acts are a special case, and we can have a high degree of confidence that they reflect the truth; however, the way in which these are delivered does have to be taken into account. Peter did not have time to consult the scriptures before he gave this speech he never expected to give. If he were writing an epistle, he might have done so. In any case, even in the epistles it is not uncommon for the quotations to come 1) from the Septuagint and not as new and original translations of the Hebrew text; 2) to be allusions rather than actual quotations; 3) to be slightly modified forms of the LXX; 4) and yes, sometimes translations directly from the Hebrew. All of these occur, and the Spirit obviously found no issue in recording these translations/adaptations in these different ways. We DO know is that what we have is God's perfect message, so we have to accept that these ways of doing things were acceptable – to the Spirit – even if they violate some modern academic standard we may think might be better.

To come back to this quotation, it is a conflation of several verses from the Septuagint. It begins with Deuteronomy 18:19, but the part you are wondering about is a quote from Leviticus 23:29 (from the LXX's Greek, that is). This might have been a slip (of memory under the pressure of an extemporaneous situation), but if so I personally would conclude that it was Holy Spirit directed. And Peter might have given this conclusion deliberately to bring home the horrific consequences of rejecting the Messiah more forcefully. For beyond all question the conclusion is true, whether it is a quotation or not.

I have to give credit to Gleason and Archer, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament" for discovering this. I have checked it out and confirm that the Lev.23:29 reference is correct. The reasoning behind the process and everything else falls at my feet, good or bad.

I wish also to commend you for your diligence and careful eye! How many Bible teachers and preachers and scholars look at passages like this and never do the digging or show the care you have shown! Good job, my friend. Here is a link which will lead to others:  "LXX quotations in the NT".

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #18:

Alright I was just making sure. I was actually reading Genesis just a moment ago and I noticed something. Where did Cain’s wife come from? Like wouldn’t that be his sister or something? The whole beginning of humanity kind of confuses me. If Cain killed his brother & had a wife where did she come from? She can’t be from Adam & Eve right? I’m just confused. Haha! Thanks man.

Response #18:

As it says:

And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:20 NKJV

". . . of ALL" – meaning that the children of Adam and Eve of course had to find spouses from among their many (and many not recorded) siblings . . . because there was no other source for the human family.

We find a similar issue after the flood where all the descendants of those who came off of the ark were (at first) close cousins (cf. also Gen.20:12). The restrictions on marrying siblings and close family members came later (in the Mosaic Law) after great increases in population.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #19:

Dear Bob,

A question(s) a little off the beaten path: During the Exodus (and later) the Israelites were required to present daily two unblemished male lambs and a quantity of "fine flour" along with oil to the temple.

The first question is, what is meant by "fine flour"? I make my own crackers, (unleavened bread, if you will) generally from grain that I mill myself and I can assure you that getting it "fine" is
work. Contemporary matzah is generally made from refined flour which couldn't have been available in the days of exodus. Do we know how they strained it?

To grow and process grain, which requires eight months or so from planting to harvest and then process, along with calving, lambing and oil harvest, would take nearly a year. Which suggest the
Israelites were camped for that amount of time. Then, the Israelites would need containers and ox drawn carts to transport the grain to the next camp where they could plant (generally after the olive harvest,) with enough extra to provide for themselves and daily "fine flour" to the temple. That's probably when they milled the grain and pressed the oil.

The more I think about the exodus, the more awe-struck I am. Judging from 600,000+ fighting men, there were wives, children and elders so the total had to be at least 3.5 million to 6+ million people with livestock to sustain all those, haul the grain and oil and provide two lambs per day plus fine flour and the occasional goat and bull for sacrifice. (I still don't understand the bull sacrifice.)

It was the wisdom of the Lord, as well as the perfect foreshadowing, that he required males for sacrifice, since one ram can take care of a whole flock of ewes. Not just impregnation, rams are aggressive and defensive so they are protective as well. Given a 50/50 chance of an ewe bearing a male, (even with one ram per flock [two would fight]) the size of the flocks alone had to have been staggering. Those flocks would also provide milk and cheese. Given the requirement that "doves" also be sacrificed, (Doves are not desert creatures.) I suspect there were other fowl to provide eggs and meat - at least in the beginning.

Another major question is "how did they harvest olives, process them and store the oil" during the exodus. Do we know anything about that? Oil was also required for the daily sacrifice as well
as the mundane business of lighting and daily meals. That would also require containers, carts and oxen. (I use about an half liter of olive oil per 4 weeks or so (one use per day) and I don't use
it for lighting. I'm one. For a family of five or six (without being able to use rendered fat,) it would be an half liter every 1-2 days. At minimum, that's 175,000 liters per day. (Or 44,000
gallons/day minimum.) Olives are only available once a year, generally in December down here which is on the same latitude as Morocco.

My conclusions are that desert, as most English translations render it, was not really a desert as we understand it. There had to have been forage and water for the herds and flocks, olive trees growing wild and fertile soil to grow grain. Except for Moses striking the rock when the going got tough, the Bible says almost nothing about the other details of the exodus.

Do you know of any archaeological digs that have found any of the middens (of which there should be many still in existence,) latrines, bones and burials or any other evidence of the exodus? That it could have left no trace is almost unbelievable. Or, has there been no curiosity at all?

I'm not ignoring the manna. I assume from that they passed through some difficult areas and the manna relieved the pressure on the grazing, but the livestock still needed forage and water. (The
description of manna actually sounds good but I can see where it would get tiring after a while. I understand why they missed garlic and onions, too. I'm curious if there's a divine reason for the
allium denial?)

I can also understand why, given the size of the exodus, many countries didn't want them passing through their land. They had to leave behind a completely destroyed earth. That the Lord provided for them and protected them throughout the journey should have inspired the faith He required but sadly didn't. I've never heard a preacher talk about this.

I would think that anyone reading the exodus account and not having faith is almost incredible. But maybe that's just me. Thanks for reading. Put this at the back of your list. There are others who probably need more attention than this.

Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Response #19:

I know that if you go to the store in, say, Germany today, they have various grades of flour according to coarseness. I believe they call what we call "flour", "cake flour" as being the finest grade. There's just no demand for the coarser stuff here in the states (and the bread in Germany is not at all like our "Wonderbread", for example). In terms of how they got it that way, this was a labor intensive activity of the sort the industrial revolution largely ended with the coming of mills.

As to the "how did they do it?" in regard to the exodus, it wouldn't be too difficult to posit all manner of logistical difficulties far beyond these when it came to the provision for and operation of a two million plus group of people wandering in the wilderness for forty years. But we know from scripture that it happened. The Lord tells them on the cusp of entering the land:

"And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet. You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or similar drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God."
Deuteronomy 29:5-6 NKJV

From this we can glean first that indeed manna was their mainstay, so that whatever flour and olive oil they had taken with them was not used up in day to day cooking, and, secondly, that there was a miraculous provision so that it was not used up – just shoes not wearing out in forty years of walking is impossible . . . unless the Lord caused that to be the case as He says He did. We may compare the widow's bin of flour and jar of oil which did not run out for the entire time Elijah was with her (1Ki.17:16). Nothing is impossible for the Lord.

To the above we may add that when all the facts are not known, many things seem impossible that actually happened. For example, there were innumerable barbarian migrations during ancient times (Cimmerians, Gauls, Germans, Huns, etc.) wherein massively large groups of people wandered for years without putting down the sorts of roots that would seem necessary to us so as not to have suffered widespread famine – and THEY did it without divine provision (I would certainly prefer the latter). The construction of the pyramids – a not only "without God" but actually pagan enterprise – likewise seems impossible so as not to be believed . . . except that there they are.

So I don't think we have to fret these details (or other complications that might occur to us). The Bible says it happened just as it happened so we may be sure that it did. Whatever logistical problems we find which seem to us insurmountable, therefore, either were actually doable through means and actions we're not privy to, or were taken care of by God's miraculous power (such as the sandals that held up all those years).

And – after all – when we look back at our own lives and see how high on the spiritual mountain we've climbed and all the obstacles we've overcome, if we have any humility, we realize it's impossible that we've gotten to where we've gotten – and yet, here we are . . . by the grace and goodness and power of the Lord alone.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #20:

Hello, Bob,

I completely overlooked the Deuteronomy reference. Thank you. I got so wrapped up in size assumptions that I ended up in the weeds again. Loaves and fishes should have been the key, but sadly, wasn't.

I do have to notice that for the Israelites to apostatize as quickly as they did after seeing the grain or flour and oil replenished is nothing short of amazing. If flour, whole grain flour would quickly
go rancid without divine intervention. The apostasy is even more amazing after crossing the Red Sea and seeing the destruction of Pharaoh's army.

The exodus account augers well for us when the order comes to leave Babylon. I was concerned about that. Your comments put that concern to rest. Thank you again.

Response #20:

Excellent points. He opened the Red Sea for them – He could certainly do anything else. And, yes, all the more amazing that they kept failing every test. The exodus generation is an excellent example for us all to keep in mind (albeit a negative one: 1Cor.10:1-13) as we find ourselves on the threshold of the deprivations the Tribulation certainly has in store for us.

Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
But the LORD delivers him out of them all.
Psalm 34:19 NKJV

Your friend in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #21:

Dear Bob:

What I find strange is why in certain places God permits the Israelites to take women and children as spoils of war in regular warfare (Deuteronomy 20) and in the case of the Midianites which caused Israel to sin in regards to sexuality and Idol Worship.

But in regards to Amalekites and Canaanites. God put them under Herem or Ban. Where all living things including women and children were to be killed. I mean at least in regards to Canaan its due to preventing idol worship from creeping in along with all of its detestable practices.

But Amalekites is harder to justify considering that God could have commanded the same thing as they did to Midianites to neutralize the threat. Unless Amalek presented the same religious threat.

Would like to hear back

God Bless

Response #21:

I think you may be right about one of the reasons for this divine policy. But I also read this in scripture:

"Therefore understand today that the LORD your God is He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the LORD has said to you. Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you. It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
Deuteronomy 9:3-5 NKJV

The Lord destroys the wicked and evil all the time; this has happened on a national level at various times throughout history. And it is certainly understandable how that we – who even if we are diligent in research – cannot know one millionth of one percent of the fact of each case, might well feel that "nation/people X" which was destroyed was not as deserving of destruction as "nation/people Y" which was. But as I say, we don't have all the information. God, however, certainly does, and we can trust Him that a perfect – and perfectly just – God could never do anything which is not absolutely righteous. If it doesn't seem so, then it is a case of us not having the facts or not evaluating them correctly.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #22:

Dear Bob:

I have no issue with guilty adults suffering judgment. But in regards to children its not so easy. The only satisfactory answer to this question was that due to the loss of the fertile Israelite land at the time there is insufficient food to take captives or to route them to other countries. Therefore if the alternative is slow death by starvation and disease it is not so bad.

I read that Crusaders in Palestine did not spare the Arab/Turkish women in one instance because of said food shortage. And in other places were there is sufficient supply their lives were spared.

Perhaps due to the Manna the Midianite women were able to be spared. No food supply shortage existed at the time.

In other instances were cities were normally destroyed for hostility to Israel. God did definitely mandate that women and children be taken as spoils of war alongside cattle and other economic items.

I find that even many Jewish rabbis through the ages find Cherem disturbing.

Would like to hear your thoughts

God bless

Response #22:

Of course no one is "innocent". One thing we can say about any child who dies before the age of accountability is that that child is saved, even if death was early and "terrible" the way the world sees things.

World history is replete with examples of nations and groups claiming to be slaughtering and enslaving others in the name of their god or gods. That is indeed horrible. But in the case of the Israelites on those RARE occasions that they actually did what God told them to do, they were following orders from the actual God. So what they did was in the will of God. We all have questions about this thing that happens or that, and most of us also would like some clarification about certain things in the Bible. But if we really do trust the Lord, then we are willing to give Him more than the benefit of that doubt that everything He says is true, and that everything He commands is not just good but also necessary to do.

Blessedly, Christians today do not have to worry about cherem or any other of the non-universal and for-all-time strictures in the Law of Moses as that has been abrogated by the cross and replaced by the New Covenant – whose ruling principle is love.

Of course times were different "then". Israel was the sole light of the world and the exclusive target of the devil's attention. And her history shows very clearly just how pernicious the influence of foreign paganism was throughout the entire pre-exilic period. No doubt they would have been much better off had they followed orders more carefully on this count – and on all counts.

In Jesus Christ the Light of the world.

Bob L.

Question #23:

I hope you are well. Can you tell me if the Hebrew word "bara" can mean other things than "create/make"? Can it mean "form" or "fashion"? Mormons say it can mean "organize" A Mormon also wrote:

Ichthys Home