Question
#1:
Dr. Luginbill,
Response #1:
Good to hear from you.
And the two of them, the man and his wife, were nude, but they felt no
shame. And the serpent, more than any other wild creature which the Lord God
had made, was shrewd.
The Hebrew word 'arum (ערום), rendered as "shrewd" above, is very
difficult to translate into English. It refers to a complexity of
character which may either be laudatory ("prudent, careful,
circumspect") or derogatory ("wily, crafty, cunning"). Thus the King
James translation is, in one sense, quite good, for "subtle" is one of
only a handful of English adjectives that can bear the meaning of "deep
and complicated" in reference to personality without choosing between
positive and negative attribution. Now this is a very important issue in
the interpretation of Genesis 3:1. The serpent, along with all other
living things on the earth, was one of the Lord God's own creations
(Gen.1:24-25). We cannot be sure of its appearance before it was cursed
to crawl on its belly, but one thing of which we can be certain is that
such a creature would never have been capable of (or interested in)
tempting his human sovereigns to sin (cf. Gen.1:26 & 28). "Subtle" and
"shrewd" bespeak a quality of animal personality without at the same
time attributing to the serpent an innate malevolence – what it did, it
did under the control and guidance of the devil (as we shall shortly
see).
Question
#2:
Hello Robert and thank you for the update.
Response #2:
A good answer on your part! Of course failing to annihilate the
Amalekites is what is laid at his feet as the "reason" by the Bible
(1Sam.15:26-28; 28:18). While this might not possibly seem such a "big
deal" to us, not following the Will of God when Saul was the
representative of the Lord over Israel was a dire offense – and
representative of all of his other willful and rebellious offenses. To
whom much is given, much is expected (Lk.12:48) – just ask Moses who was
not allowed to enter the land for a similar offense (similar in that he
as the leader violated the Lord's express command).
Bob L.
Question
#3:
Genesis 46:20 (NASB)
Response #3:
On question #1, it was not only Solomon: there are also the examples of
Judah and Tamar, Salmon and Rahab, Boaz and Ruth – to name other
prominent examples in the line of the Lord. So this happened many other
times as well. Since this was a command of the king, it doesn't seem
that Joseph had a lot of choice in the matter. In any case, God worked
it out for good, and we may be sure that since two tribes would be the
result of the union, God would have prevented it if there were a problem
with it. The separation of Israel from the gentiles was for spiritual
safety as well as for symbolism, but in the end all believers are one in
the Church of Jesus Christ, regardless of our genealogy.
Question
#4:
Isaiah 28:10,13 contains a statement that is popularly quoted about the
interpretation of the Bible (that is, the so-called "line upon line,
precept upon precept" approach). The NIV 84 footnote and the NIV Study
Notes make sense to me when they say that the statement was gibberish
that was deliberately written by Isaiah to say that since the people
being addressed were rejecting the Truth and calling it nonsense, it
would always sound like nonsense to them (comparing 28:11 appears to me
to solidly confirm this position). What do you say about it, Sir?
Response #4:
As to "line upon line, and precept upon precept", it has both a literal
meaning and also could sound nonsensical – loosely similar to a parable.
The people don't "get it" and so it seems like mocking – which is
exactly what they are doing vis-à-vis
the truth: these words are actually taken from their own song of
mockery; but the words literally expresses the only way to grow, one
principle of truth at a time. For more details see Q/A #2
at the link.
Question
#5:
Hi, Bob,
Response #5:
On Numbers, there is no doubt a connection between these banners and
standards (12 and 4 respectively) and the gems on the high-priest's
breastplate and thus also with the gates of New Jerusalem (you can read
what I've written about the latter at the link:
"The Gemstone Foundations and the Tribal Gates of New Jerusalem").
Question #6:
Dear Dr. Luginbill,
Response #6:
Good to hear back from you.
Question
#7:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #7:
Thanks for the detailed response. Apologies in advance that this will
not be as long and detailed.
Melchizedek and the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ
Trust me when I say that I care what the Bible says. If the Bible didn't
convince me that Melchizedek was a man but rather that he was a
Christophany, that is what I would teach. I went the Bible's way on all
manner of doctrines that conflicted with what Col. Thieme taught. I
respect him as a mentor. But I have to stand with the Bible, no matter
what.
Question
#8:
Greetings again Dr. Luginbill,
Response #8:
I think you are misunderstanding me on all points.
Question
#9:
Hi Dr. Luginbill,
Response #9:
I did see this but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Jesus Christ – by whatever name – is the same "yesterday, today and
forever" (Heb.13:8). Hebrews says Melchizedek is "like the Son of God" –
which means he is NOT the Son of God; it cannot mean that he IS the Son
of God, by whatever name. At Hebrews 7:15, I read that "it is yet far
more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises
another
priest", meaning our Lord, our High Priest. Note: "another priest" . . .
who by definition here is not THE SAME priest. Honestly, I truly do not
wish to get any deeper into any discussion that suggests that Jesus has
not always been "the Son of God" (see the link:
"The Persons of God").
This is theologically very dangerous territory. If you must go down this
road, I strongly suggest you keep it to yourself and not share it with
others who might be led astray.
Question
#10:
Hi Dr. Luginbill,
Response #10:
Your point 1): "add to scripture": It is not adding to scripture to
explain it correctly; explaining it incorrectly and calling that
"literal" does a great disservice to the Church. "Without genealogy"
MEANS no genealogy recorded "in the Bible". Melchizedek came from Salem,
a city; he had a genealogy; it's just not recorded. That is the point. But
you have an anointing from the Holy One (i.e., the universal indwelling of
the Spirit to believers), and you all know [this] (i.e., the anointing is so
powerful that every believer is aware of His presence). This is
what the verses means, like it or not. They do NOT mean that you don't need a
teacher: So
Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors
and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of
Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the
knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole
measure of the fullness of Christ. By all
means, follow the Spirit. If you are seeking the truth, the Spirit will guide
you to a place where you can learn it. But if you are only playing around . . .
Question
#11:
Dr. Luginbill,
Response #11:
I appreciate your spirit, brother. Thanks for the background, and also
thank you for your service.
Question
#12:
Hi Bob,
Response #12:
It's possible. Snakes are found by many people to be scary because they
can be dangerous and God does use all manner of intimidating means
against evil (thunder, lightning, storms, wild animals, evil nations,
etc.); I'm sure if Moses' staff had turned into a bunny rabbit, while
Pharaoh might have been impressed by the miracle, it wouldn't have had
the same effect.
Question
#13:
Hi Bob.
Response #13:
It's a little of both, I would say: 1) in terms of being "holy" . . .
only in the eyes of those for whom "holiness" is paganism. Compare:
Who say, ‘Keep to yourself,
2) It is those who refuse God's warnings to them and are not willing to
repent who suffer the fate described. Here is NKJV on the previous Job
verse talking about the same individuals:
"But the hypocrites in heart store up wrath;
The Hebrew has "polluted/godless/profane of heart" – suggesting
apostates.
Question
#14:
Dear Teacher
Response #14:
I'm glad you found it helpful!
Question
#15:
Dear Teacher
Response #15:
On your question, Nebuchadnezzar was unquestionably saved as Daniel
chapter four makes abundantly clear (in Dan.4:8a he seems to be speaking
historically and nationally, but later in the verse he attributes
divinity to THE God; I would translate "god" and "God" respectively).
Question #16:
Dear Teacher
Response #16:
I thought so!
Question
#17:
Dear Br Bob
Response #17:
I don't think this has anything directly to do with God: these are
David's words. This is David's way of putting it all in the Lord's
hands. After all, everything that happens is in the plan of God and the
plan is perfect. Just as Job said, "the Lord gave and the Lord took away
– blessed be the Name of the Lord!" We know that God works everything
out for our good – for we who love Him (Rom.8:28). So whenever anything
amiss happens, isn't it right to realize that it couldn't happen without
God, and that God has things in mind we can't imagine? David was
suffering from divine discipline (for killing Uriah on account of
Bathsheba), but he confessed his sin and it was forgiven (2Sam.12:13),
and he is now putting it all in the Lord's hands to work it out for
good, even though at that moment this particular offense was no doubt
very hard to bear. As king, he could have had the man killed – but the
Lord blessed David in place of the curses he was receiving, and restored
his kingdom in the end . . . just as he had said and hoped.
Question
#18:
Hi Bob
Response #18:
David was given to pen scripture under the inspiration of the Spirit. So was
Peter. Peter said and did some things that were clearly wrong (such as rebuking
the Lord and also denying the Lord), and these are recorded in the gospels
accurately through the Spirit's inspiration of those who wrote the gospels. See
the difference? Bible books which record historical details record them
accurately. But just because a person mentioned therein is a believer, even a
great believer, does not mean that everything he/she says in a historical
context is right or authorized by God (same thing for their actions). This is a
big issue in people drawing the wrong conclusions from the book of Acts (see
the link).
Question
#19:
Dear Brother Luginbill,
Response #19:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
In essence, while there are some passages in the Law which seem to
address the issue, they are focused on pagan markings given as part of
pagan worship. So I'm not prepared to say that this sort of thing is
forbidden by the Bible. Personally, I'm not a fan for many reasons, but
that is my own opinion. One thing we can say for certain, however, is
that the tattoo which antichrist's religion will require, "the mark of
the beast", is definitely forbidden (Rev.13:1ff.). And it is probably
the case that all the body-marking going on at present is at least
removing the previous societal prejudice against this sort of things,
thus removing one barrier of resistance for the time when most of the
world will submit to this particular tattoo.
Question
#20:
Hi, Brother Luginbill,
Response #20:
1) As to "the origin of this very act is definitely evil", I
don't find this a valid basis for telling Christians that things are
right or wrong if they are not spelled out as such in the Bible.
Christmas trees have a questionable origin, but having one does not mean
that the person in question is involving him/herself in paganism. The
same thing goes for celebrating Christmas and Easter, neither of which
are commanded or suggested in scripture, but while I personally do not
celebrate them in any particular way, I'm loath to tell other Christians
that they are doing wrong – because in my view scripture does not
authorize that sort of stricture for "disputable matters" (Rom.14:1).
Same goes for tattoos . . . and many other things that are forbidden by
the Mosaic Law either directly or, in this case, not so directly. After
all, when the Jerusalem council gave its guidance to the gentiles. only
direct involvement in pagan religion via strangulation of animals,
eating blood and engaging in ritual fornication were forbidden (whereas
they could easily have come up with a VERY long list, one that included
tattoos, e.g.). So while if you, personally, don't wish to get a tattoo
for whatever reason, I have no issues with that (I feel the same way);
but I would counsel against telling other Christians that they are
violating scripture or engaging in paganism if they choose to do so,
because I don't find that to be a valid position. We are not under the
Law and, as suggested in the link, the passages in question are
ambiguous. A more profitable approach might be one which I took with a
loved one many years ago when asked about this when said person was
clearly thinking about getting one. I replied, "what would your reaction
be if you met your new doctor and he/she was covered in tattoos on arms
and face?" Clearly, this would not induce great confidence in said
doctor – which goes to show that everything we do (and say) reflects on
us and on our character. And if we would be leery of trusting a
profession who had an unprofessional appearance, maybe we should apply
that lesson to ourselves.
Question
#21:
Dr. Luginbill,
Response #21:
Hello Friend,
The Hebrew
word for 'one' (`echadh) and the uniqueness of God.
Do feel free to write me back about this.
Question
#22:
Hello Bob,
Response #22:
I'll give you some links below to where I discuss this curse. In brief,
this curse refers to the fact that even among the progeny of believers
in Israel, if that progeny persists in turning completely away from the
Lord, at some point down the line, His patience runs out, even though
they be descended from Abraham and the patriarchs. All Israel was
supposed to be believers, but of course being born with that wonderful
heritage does not take away free will and many have used it to selfishly
and foolishly turn their backs on God: "all Israel is not Israel" as
Paul tells us (Rom.9:6).
Breaking the Generational Curse?
In Jesus
Question
#23:
Hi Bob,
Response #23:
On Job 26:5, this is a description of Hades which, rightly translated
and understood, aligns perfectly with all other biblical information
about that place. In biblical geography, the "waters below", that is,
the sea[s], cover the underworld (cf. Rev.20:13-14; and
see the link for a schematic).
Here is a link to where I discuss this, and here is how I translate
our passage therein:
The spirits of the departed are in torment under the waters, even all who
reside [there below].
As to the various translations, I will say that Job is possibly the most
difficult book to understand and thus to render in the entire Old
Testament, and that is saying a great deal. One of the reasons for that
is that its language is not only poetic but also archaic (and the
vocabulary and style of the different interlocutors is noticeable as
well – they hale from different regions and that is reflected in their
language usage). One result of that is that there are many words which
occur only in Job and sometimes only once (so as to have to have their
meanings gleaned from context and sometimes root etymologies). Another
result of that is that the syntax is also difficult for many to parse
out, being much more paratactic than hypotactic (i.e., stringing ideas
together rather than making clearly subordinate clauses which would
clarify the relationships between them). Just ran into an example of
that this morning wherein I believe all of the versions misunderstand Job
10:15, failing to see that the imperative with which the verse ends is
set up by one which precedes (the form "full of [misery]" and "be sated
with [my misery]!" look the same in their consonantal orthography and
are vocalized the same as well). Just an example to help explain how the
versions can indeed be all over the map on any given verse in this book.
Question
#24:
Bob, Thank you. You have cleared up a 30+ year mystery, and connected
dots I couldn't. If the Book of Job is that hard to translate, I don't
feel badly in my confusion. You have also cleared up the confusion
between translations
In Jesus,
Response #24:
Always glad to help, my friend.
Question
#25:
Hi Bob,
Response #25:
Thanks for finding the offense/defense typo – some mistakes are worse
than others.
Question #26:
Hi Bob,
Response #26:
On the wine, the Hebrew word is shemer, which means
wine-on-the-lees or "aged wine". So the idea is "really good stuff"
rather than saying anything about the process.
Question
#27:
Last thing, I am rereading Job and I saw this (9:8):
Response #27:
Job is not the easiest book to interpret. There are some things on the
site about that (e.g.,
"Emails about Job", at the link).
I have a question about the meanings of some Hebrew words. In Genesis 2:25 the
bible says that 'Adam and Eve was naked but not ashamed' - the word naked is "arummim",
"arom" (strongs #6174), and in Genesis 3:1 the bible says that 'the serpent was
more cunning' - the word cunning is "arum" (strongs #6175). Can you tell me if
these two words are related? And if so, how should the words (or concepts) be
translated in the above verses?
Here's the excerpt from Ichthys which speaks about this:
Genesis 2:25-3:1a
But within these famous verses of scripture is an important point often
overlooked in exegesis: the final verse of chapter two is intimately
connected with the opening verse of chapter three, and the paronomasia
between "nude" and "shrewd" (i.e., between 'arom and 'arum:
almost identical in the Hebrew) serves as a very deliberate connection
and contrast. Adam and Eve are naked, and so unsophisticated in the ways
of the world are they that they do not even perceive the necessity for
what is perhaps the most basic of all human conventions, the wearing of
clothing. One should expect nothing less from our first parents before
partaking of the fruit of the forbidden tree: they had no cognizance or
understanding of the difference between good and evil since everything
they saw, or touched, or experienced in any way was good. Certainly they
felt no shame at being naked – they hadn't even a clue what shame was.
In the animal kingdom, the wild creature who contrasted most sharply to
our first parents was the serpent. His careful, circumspect, shy
behavior was very different from the innocently open and
straight-forward conduct of Adam and Eve. This was animal behavior, of
course, behavior in quite a different category from our own, but
inevitably viewed by us (and our first parents) in anthropomorphic terms
(in the same way that we observe distinct "personalities" in our pet
cats and dogs). Adam and Eve would certainly have even more reason to
think in these terms if, indeed, some of what these pre-fall creatures
uttered was perceptible to them (a distinct possibility since Eve, after
all, does not seem at all shocked when the serpent addresses her). By
calling the serpent "subtle" or "shrewd", scripture directs our
attention to his worldliness in contrast to Adam and Eve's "nude"
innocence, without, at the same time, making the serpent seem
intrinsically bad (he certainly did not seem so to Adam and Eve before
the fall). Thus the serpent was the perfect choice for Satan's attack,
and apparently a creature very familiar to our first parents because of
his uniqueness. Because his "personality" bespoke a careful "wisdom" of
sorts, he was just the mouthpiece the devil was looking for to spread
his lies.
Merry Christmas!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Robert, I am in a bible study in 1 Samuel chapter 13 in verses 13-14 And Samuel
said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of
the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have
established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not
continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath
commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that
which the LORD commanded thee.
Pastor said, hum how do I put this...
1. That Saul’s kingdom would not have been forever because he was not from the
tribe Judah.
2. Samuel was the one who told Saul that if he followed God’s command that his
kingdom would be established forever. Samuel, a man, and not God. The pastor
said it as though the command came from Samuel (man), so therefore Saul really
did not have accept the command as though the command was from God.
My response was, if Saul had not officiated the burnt offering which only
someone from the tribe of Levi could do, breaking the commands of God, Saul’s
kingdom would be until now.
Help
You are always in my prayers
Hope you are well – thanks for your prayers!
In Jesus our dear Savior,
20 Now to Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom
Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.
Question: Are there spiritual concerns to Joseph marrying one outside the family
tree and especially an Egyptian?
Solomon also did this obviously. I'd also like to hear your take on this.
Also . . .
Genesis 47:16 (NASB)
16 Then Joseph said, “Give up your livestock, and I will give you food for your
livestock, since your money is gone.”
Joseph, in my opinion, arguably treats the Egyptian citizens cruelly. They had
paid tribute to build the stockpile and were citizens. Joseph was in charge as a
steward for the people of Egypt. Was this a sinful way to treat the Egyptian
people because he made them give everything. I could easily see Joseph's actions
for non-citizens but for Egyptians I read about his conduct and don't think its
righteous conduct.
What do you think?
In our Lord and Savior,
On question #2, I don't think our modern notion of citizenship applies
to ancient Egypt. Joseph was working for Pharaoh, not the people of
Egypt, and in general absolute monarchy – under a beneficent monarch –
is the ideal form of government for sinful human beings. After all, that
is what we will have in the Millennium. Since the Egyptians had it good
under Joseph when otherwise they would have all starved to death, his
fortifying of this king's position through these means seems shrewd as
well as merciful.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I am reading the book of Numbers (revisiting the OT) In chapter 2 the Lord is
organizing the arrangement of the camp before the people leave Sinai. My
question is about the standards of each tribe. I see familiar ones like lion,
man, calf, eagle which resurface in Revelation (and Christian art) I reread the
blessing of Jacob at the end of Genesis and cannot seem to find these images in
the blessings, except for Judah referred to as a lion). Who made the decision
for the emblems on these banners...God speaking, or the leader? I think it is so
interesting that these 4 images are a thread Genesis to Revelation. Not a big
issue and please do not research this. I just wondered if you had info on
Numbers. There are so many ways that God set the pattern and that show the
single story of the Scripture.
Just something for you to dwell on as you prepare for U of L, class issues, home
issues...etc. Just thinking out loud.
Til later
These four groupings of encampment definitely correspond to the
three-per-side groupings of the four sides of New Jerusalem (prior
link). Whether or not there is/was a similar correspondence with the
four standards of the groupings and the faces of the cherubim (who
likewise stand on the four sides of the throne of God; see the link:
"The Cherubim") is not stated in scripture, but it is an interesting and
parallel and not accidental. As to whether or not there were images on
the standards and on the banners, scripture is silent about that, of
course. Given the biblical commands against making physical images
(e.g., Ex.20:4; Deut.5:8; cf. Is.40:19-20; 44:10-20; 46:5-7;
Jer.10:1-15), while that is not exactly the same thing it is similar
enough that in the absence of biblical evidence to the contrary I would
tend to doubt it.
Yes, we're running out of time fast! Article still a long way off from
being done; lots of prep to do yet, not to mention getting the homestead
buttoned-down before it all hits. On top of that I got stuck on
personnel again. Fun and games.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I want to get back to the subject of Ezekiel's temple sacrifices
eventually because I came across a site with views somewhat like mine to
my surprise. I believe there is something there in the sacrifices not
being a memorial, although there may be a commemorative aspect. I view a
memorial of animal sacrifices in looking back to Christ as somewhat
blasphemous. Having been in the military through the influence of R.B.
Thieme (I read that he greatly influenced you as well), I must admit
that anything that takes away from the sacrificial death of a man for
the sake of those he loves is repulsive to me. Communion can make me
tear up; animals didn't die for me. Thus this is an important subject.
(Since I've found your website, I am quite excited to post. Thank you so
much for replying to me about Ezekiel 40-48. I believe I found a brother
who can sharpen me as iron sharpens iron. I am a seeker of the truth in
Scriptures. Someday I may give my testimony, for now back to
Melchizedek.)
You stated in your post about Melchizedek not being Christ: "It does not
work to compare if they are one and the same person." He (Jesus) is in
the "order of Melchizedek". Thus Jesus would have to be a different
person if he was "in the order".
Answer: Jesus is the incarnate son of God who became man by his birth
into the human race. Thus he became a different "person" as a human
being, but he was "in the order of" what he was previously. He was as
the "Angel of the Lord" in subsequent theophanies Gen. 17:1; 18:1-33 or
previously in Gen. 12:7. In appearing as a priest of the Most High God,
Abraham recognizes the interceding aspect of God and uses this to
negotiate with God later about the righteous Lot in Sodom.
King of Salem was another name for him. I am not aware of there actually
being a city called Salem in Abraham's time, nor is there any further
reference in Scripture to this city. Salem could be heaven where he came
from and where he is also king of righteousness. New Jerusalem could be
from where he reigns in the future. Abraham not knowing this, may have
searched for Salem. (Heb.11:10)
Melchizedek had no genealogy, but Jesus did. Jesus with a mankind
incarnate genealogy is a different person, yet the same.
Tithes today are only paid to Jesus or Melchizedek (Heb. 7:8) The
undesignated "he" in this verse in Greek could refer to either one, "he
who lives".
The argument that he was made like the "Son of God", thus was not God,
could be simply that he was made like the Son of God prior as
Melchizedek and he becomes the Son of God incarnate as Jesus.
God bless you, please feel free to comment.
Yes, the Col. was/is my mentor, and I can't imagine this ministry
without his insight and influence.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on both of these matters.
What I would most like to point out is that our methodology for
interpreting scripture is different. As pointed out in the last email,
scripture says that there are millennial sacrifices; it doesn't say they
serve the purpose suggested (although no doubt this is in part to
fulfill promises made in the Old Testament: Jer.33:18). On this new point, scripture says that
there was a Melchizedek; it doesn't say that he was a Christophany.
Potential explanations of why things "might be" this way or that are
sometimes helpful, but they aren't proof in a hermeneutic sense. They
may be reasons for why you or I might not want to accept this or that
interpretation, or why we might, but they are not proof in and of
themselves.
So the fact that you are uncomfortable with animal sacrifice after the
fact of our Lord's death on the cross and resurrection, while it may be
reason to investigate, is not proof that it won't happen – it will
happen – nor that it no longer speaks about the cross. In terms of the
latter, all other animal sacrifice does so, and there is nothing I find
in scripture to indicate that such is not the case once Israel is
restored to her proper place in the world. Indeed, the descriptions of
the sacrifices, such as they are in Ezekiel, are virtually identical to
what happened under the Law. For that reason I find "memorial" a prudent
explanation; but I find the alternative going a "bridge too far" without
either sufficient reason to find it necessary to do so or any scriptural
guidance which would allow it (not in the way I read those passages, at
any rate).
On Melchizedek, this is of course a long-standing point of argument
going back centuries. For someone who wants to consider him as a
Christophany, I don't think that is going to be any sort of "make or
break issue" (even though I don't agree with it). I'm merely trying to
teach what I firmly believe the Bible has to say on the subject. We can
discuss all of these points if you wish. Key to me however is what I
read in Hebrews and what has always seemed decisive to me:
ἀφωμοιωμένος
δὲ
τῷ
υἱῷ
τοῦ
θεοῦ translated by NKJV as "made like the Son of God"; a little
more literally this says "if/when compared to the Son of God". The fact
that Jesus after the incarnation is the God-man (which He was not
before) is not a valid objection: Jesus has always been "THE Son of
God", and if someone is "compared to Him", that person by definition
cannot be Him.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Good to hear back from you so quickly! I look forward now to
corresponding with you. I appreciate your diligence in Scripture.
Regarding Col.Thieme, while he introduced me to doctrine back in 1970
when I was in Houston for several months--looking back over time I came
to realize even in a few years after, that my life did not draw
noticeably closer to the Lord just in learning doctrine or taking notes.
My interest in the Bible was piqued, but it was just like I was
interested suddenly in geology or another subject of study.
I also began to realize that not everything he taught was necessarily
completely true or right. As I studied and sought the Lord's wisdom I
began to see flaws as well in thinking knowing doctrine about God was
the completed answer. 1 Corinthians 13 reveals a lot of this emphasis on
gifts which includes learning knowledge alone apart from love and even
faith apart from which "it is impossible to please God." Kenneth
Copeland also has greatly influenced me in developing faith. We cannot
neglect as well the "weightier matters of the law."
I am of Swiss-German extraction. I've noticed certain ethnicities or
families of nations also have certain general giftings. Germans tend to
be detail oriented, elder brothers like Aaron types; whereas
Scotch-Irish backgrounds are more leadership, prodigal son types. We are
all in this together as brothers. There is no need to covet other
giftings like Uzziah. We will be rewarded on how we play our role with
the gifting we have.
The German people who were Christian, because of their desire to get
things right were instrumental in the Protestant Reformation, but as
they got off into "vain jangling" and "striving about words to no
profit" in their theological universities--they lost the faith of their
fathers. I don't want to get this way!!-- to sit in an easy
professorship chair and pontificate about doctrine like the Pharisees.
Jesus said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you
have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hath revealed
them unto babes."
I grew up among the Amish. With all their faults, their elders at least,
saw what can happen when men no longer work with their hands or have to
produce something useful to earn their bread. They get blinded to the
realities of life, much like the intellectuals in the swamp in
Washington DC which Trump has revealed to be bankrupt in wisdom and even
in correct mentality.
So--regarding the Melchizedek controversy. Is this just vain jangling to
no profit whether he was Jesus or not? Well, it is a nice detail puzzle
to solve for me and maybe for you too. How much it counts in our
spiritual life is only as good as the Bible explains how he was "like
Jesus" who is our everything in what an abundant life as a Christian is
supposed to be--the "Faith-Rest Life". You and I are viewing Melchizedek
from our own perspective and we see things according to our viewpoint
which we have bonded to. Thus as the saying goes--"a man convinced
against his will is of the same opinion still."
Will I be able to convince you Melchizedek was Jesus preincarnate?
Probably not. Will you be able to convince me he was a homo sapiens
only? Probably not. Only when our own wills, our own egos, our own
bondings are given up and we cry to God for wisdom will the answers come
as we hunger for answers like a baby who has no pride to defend. "Ask,
(keep on) and it will be given you...", and even then there is more. "If
any man thinketh he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought
to know." I Cor. 8:2. Doctrine is not the end all answer. Applying it to
life in the Spirit and submission to Almighty God is the answer in the
bond of love. Thus said, this is my analysis of the puzzle:
The Pharisees saw Jesus only as a man. The disciples viewed him as
Messiah. They saw him as a man but a man who had God possessing his
every word and action. They saw the divine in him.
You are emphasizing Melchizedek from the perspective of a man and found
verses and logic to support it. You see the divine order of his
priesthood in him as well--like the disciples would. Would you agree to
this point? We actually have the mystery of the Trinity here.
I see myself emphasizing the divine order as the divine in him. Thus he
is an "exact facsimile of God with regard to the Son". This is how I
translate "made like the Son of God". I can't show Greek here, but "of
God" is in the Genitive case and "to the Son" is Dative.
Jesus is an exact facsimile of the Father--even though a man. He is not
the Father--but an exact representative of him. Thus he is divine or God
in the flesh or the Son of God.
Melchizedek was an exact facsimile of God too, like a son is of his
father. Thus he is exactly a facsimile of him as the Son of God would
manifest himself to mankind before the incarnation, Actually, if you
think from a another perspective, "made like the Son of God" can apply
to Jesus too. Jesus was made like-- the exact facsimile (Son) of God,
Then again:
1) Melchizedek was without father or mother or descent. He was without,
not just that it was not recorded.
2) He had no beginning of days nor end of life.
3) He is a priest forever (perpetuity)
4) He received tithes. Only God can receive tithes, for he gives us
everything and the power to get wealth. Tithes go to the storehouse,
yes, but ultimately that storehouse is heaven, where our treasure is.
5) He is the King of Righteousness and the King of Peace. Who else is
king of these, but Jesus?
6) Abraham never visited or found Salem (if this word did mean a city),
but he looked for a city whose builder and maker was God.
Thanks so much for hearing me out. I long for a place to express my
thoughts--so I am grateful for your website. May God grant you insight
from your perspectives and giftings.
First, I'm not sure you've read everything on the site about this (all
of the points you list are included in the details of these postings
collectively). Here are the main links:
New Testament Interpretation: Melchizedek
Christ the First-Born, High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek.
More on Melchizedek (two Q/As here)
So if I thought the other points which seem persuasive to you were
correct or, more to the point, that they outweighed the main one I made
to you, I would be happy to change my view. It's doesn't matter to me
personally; I didn't write it; I only read and interpret it.
Melchizedek is "compared to the Son of God"; ergo Melchizedek is someone different from the
Son of God. I don't see any other way to read this passage. Since all of
the other points in my view have answers and this one doesn't, I will be
sticking to the proposed interpretation absent new information.
I get that people have different perspectives. However, the Bible says
what it says and means what it means. I have devoted my life to trying
to figure that out as best I can and share it with those who want to
grow in Spirit and truth. I think the results (which are not mine, truth
to tell) speak for themselves.
So, if you are a pastor-teacher, I respect your right to make these
"calls" yourself: you are responsible to the Lord for what your teach,
after all, and that is an awesome responsibility.
But if you are not gifted as a teacher, and, even if you are, if you
have not yet gotten to the point through study, training and preparation
where you are capable of feeding yourself spiritually and others too,
then you need to attach yourself to a ministry where you can grow and
can be fed. It's not a matter of points like this; it's a matter of
authority. Col. Thieme was certainly right about that. No one can grow
by merely amassing information in the brain. Only what is true can
produce growth, and only if it is believed. A person can be aware of ten
different interpretations of a passage/issue and be able to recite and
extrapolate them wonderfully well; he/she can even have a preference as
to which one is probably right; but a) if he/she is not right, and even
more to the point b) if he/she does not really have enough confidence in
said point of truth to believe it, then there is no profit whatsoever.
In fact, this scholastic approach is more likely to harden the heart
over time than it is to lead someone closer to Jesus Christ. Neither the
merely academic effort nor the hyper-emotional anti-academic approaches
work. Scripture says there are teachers placed in the Church for the
edification of its members. All who are not teachers, can only really
get anywhere positive and substantial by learning from a good source AND
believing what is taught.
To that end, my suggestion is as ever that you find a source you can,
after vetting, trust with a high level of confidence; then, study, learn
and believe as much truth as you can. I certainly would never deign to
suggest that Ichthys is the ONLY such place; but it is one such place,
and, quite frankly, the number of places out there in the waning days of
Laodicea is shockingly small. One other place I always recommend is
pastor-teacher Curtis Omo's Bible Academy (at
the link); see also now BibleDocs (link).
You are certainly welcome here any time, my friend. All materials are
available free of charge and anonymously.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
We continue sleuthing along here seeking to discover Melchizedek's identity.
I did read the 4 sites you noted for me to read which you wrote on this subject.
It was difficult for me to get the gist of your interpretation of the last
phrase of Heb.7:3--"with regard to the comparison of the Son of God, he remains
a priest continually."
As I understand it, you are saying the comparison is not concrete but only a
facsimile or painting. This is because M has no recorded end of life and he is
in this sense only comparable to the Son God who has no end of life in
reality--thus no end of priesthood.
Thus if M and the Son of God were the same people how could the author of
Hebrews (apparently Paul) draw a comparison?
Whereas I take the phrase to be saying, "being made an exact facsimile with
regard to the Son of God, he remains a priest continually (because he is equal
to him)". I don't believe the Greek grammar here is the problem, rather it is
the spirit in which the whole section here and actually all of Hebrews is to be
understood.
You stated in a previous posting that Jesus was always THE Son of God. However,
if we look at Hebrews 1 we find several references to the Son of God being a new
term for the 3rd person of the Trinity. "Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee." There is a reference to Ps. 2:7, I Sam. 7:14, Ps. 45:6-7 all of
which describe Jesus after his incarnation. Even Ps. 110:1 is describing the Son
of David as Jesus stated.
In Luke 1:34, the holy thing born of Mary is to be called the Son of God. In
Acts 13:33, the fulfillment of the term Son of God is only after his
resurrection! So especially with regard to the book of Hebrews, the 3rd person
was not always called the Son of God.
Thus the reference of comparison with the Son of God in Heb. 7:3 makes sense and
within the context of Hebrews. He was not the Son of God with regard to mankind
in his preincarnate state, and thus Melchizedek as such was type of what the Son
of God would be.
I perceive as well that you have a presupposition based on your belief in
Gentile patriarchy and how you believe a Gentile man, Melchizedek, must have
been a priest in the area for those who believed in the true God. I may be wrong
in how you view this for Melchizedek, but I did read your paragraph about this
subject. This is not in Scripture, although it might be true, but I can't let
that guide my understanding unless the Spirit so directs. Based on the
description of M in Heb. 7:1-3 he was not a typical Gentile priest, but so much
more.
Regarding being under authority---it is true we need to listen to teachers and
shepherds God has given us. However, we all have a specific teacher, the Holy
Spirit as it states in 1 John. If the Holy Spirit teaches us then He will
confirm to us the teaching of our authority. If not, or if I am not growing
closer to God or the counsel is not working, then God has other shepherds for me
and I am guided to another. I am to call no man my Master on earth for I have
one Master in heaven. Any teacher I have, I am to let him be my servant to bring
me closer to God.
Thus I am not bonded to R.B. Thieme's teaching.
May God grant us all understanding,
On Melchizedek: Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was "made like the Son of God"
(NKJV); but in the Greek text the grammar makes clear that Melchizedek in the
nominative is NOT "the Son of God" Himself since "the Son of God" is in a
completely different case (i.e., in the dative: ἀφωμοιωμ νος δὲ τ υἱ το θεος).
Since Melchizedek is "made like TO" the Son of God, Melchizedek cannot at the
same time BE the Son of God. If I say that an oak tree is, in some respects,
"like an elm", by definition I mean that an oak is NOT an elm, similarities
aside. That is what Paul says. That is very clear. It really can't be taken any
other way. There are plenty of other reasons why Melchizedek is not Jesus
Christ, but here is a place where the Bible says so definitively, and we need go
no farther.
As to authority, no one is asking you to be bound to Col. Thieme's teaching or
anyone else'. It is true, however, that without giving your spiritual allegiance
over to a substantive teaching ministry it is impossible to grow past a certain
point, and I think the esoteric approach you have clearly adopted makes this
abundantly clear. No Christian without the teaching gift AND the preparation and
experience which makes him fit to employ it can provide enough spiritual
nutrition to grow. Moreover, taking the tack that "I have the ability to decide
on every point of doctrine what's right and what's wrong" is merely opposing the
Holy Spirit. If you want to know the truth, He guides you to a place where you
can learn it. But if you decide that you know better than the gifted and
prepared individual who is trying to help you, you will believe nothing you are
taught and so your "learning" will only fuel arrogance without at the same time
contributing to spiritual growth.
I certainly hope you can take all this in the spirit in which it is meant,
namely, deeply desiring your spiritual safety, spiritual growth, and spiritual
production down the road – that is the way to win the three crowns of eternal
reward (link).
As I say, far be it from me to suggest that Ichthys is the "only place" you can
learn and have the confidence to put your faith in what you're being taught. I
also recommended to you Bible Academy, as an example (link). But you do have to
start somewhere if and when you decide to get serious about this.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Well, first off. Did you read entirely my last posting about
Melchizedek? You did not address the different point I made about the
Son of God.
This makes me wonder if you have time to answer all the questions that
come in daily or hurriedly skim for the basics. I really don't know how
you have time anyway or if you have staff that answer on your behalf.
Don't you get a lot of mail?
Anyway, I will copy and paste only the relevant section of my last
posting and stay with one subject at a time. If I have time I will
discuss tongues and authority in separate postings.
Melchizedek: I don't believe the Greek grammar here is the problem,
rather it is the spirit in which the whole section here and actually all
of Hebrews is to be understood.
You stated in a previous posting that Jesus was always THE Son of God.
However, if we look at Hebrews 1 we find several references to the Son
of God being a new term for the 3rd person of the Trinity. "Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee." There is a reference to Ps. 2:7, I
Sam. 7:14, Ps. 45:6-7 all of which describe Jesus after his incarnation.
Even Ps. 110:1 is describing the Son of David as Jesus stated.
In Luke 1:34, the holy thing born of Mary is to be called the Son of
God. In Acts 13:33, the fulfillment of the term Son of God is only after
his resurrection! So especially with regard to the book of Hebrews, the
3rd person was not always called the Son of God.
Thus the reference of comparison with the Son of God in Heb. 7:3 makes
sense and within the context of Hebrews. He was not the Son of God with
regard to mankind in his preincarnate state, and thus Melchizedek as
such was type of what the Son of God would be.
I perceive as well that you have a presupposition based on your belief
in Gentile patriarchy and how you believe a Gentile man, Melchizedek,
must have been a priest in the area for those who believed in the true
God. I may be wrong in how you view this for Melchizedek, but I did read
your paragraph about this subject. This is not in Scripture, although it
might be true, but I can't let that guide my understanding unless the
Spirit so directs. Based on the description of M in Heb. 7:1-3 he was
not a typical Gentile priest, but so much more.
Thankful for the opportunity to spar with you,
So Melchizedek was unique? That is Paul's entire point. The fact that he
was unique does not make him Christ (which he was not). In fact the
analogy only works if it is an analogy, comparing one person to Another;
it doesn't make any sense if there is in fact no comparison.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Well, I guess we have exhausted Melchizedek and will have to disagree. I
say that not out of pride or stubbornness--I just can't "hear" what you
are saying. It does not sit in my spirit as correct. I understand the
point about you can't compare the same things, thus why would Paul
compare Melchizedek to the Son of God if he was the Son of God. I get
that point.
Perhaps the main reason I came to this, in looking back over my study in
Hebrews was the "without father, without mother, without descent,...etc.
problem, which I take literally and do not add [in Scripture] to these
words. You have to add these brackets to Scripture to fit the comparison
phrase.
Secondly, Jesus surely is the same yesterday, today and forever. But to
me, this is his essence, his character, his divinity in other words. You
point this out in your Trinity explanation.
(Actually, the Greek word aphomoioo for "made like" in Heb. 7:3 comes
from the root, homoioo, which according to Strong's the adjective form
stresses the "outward similarities with nothing being considered about
the inward realities.")
He certainly remains the 3rd person of the Trinity as he was in eternity
past. But there was a point in time when he "was made (ginomai) in the
likeness" of men. Phil. 2:7 Thus there must have been a time when he was
not in the "likeness" of men.
This does not mean there was a time when he was not subordinate to the
Father, or was not God.
Thirdly then, we have no problem scripturally with the 3 person of the
Trinity appearing as an "Angel of the Lord" who apparently looked like a
man (though in reality was not of his flesh and blood as he was when
born of Mary.) (Gen. 18:1-2) Maybe it is strange that he should appear
as a priest, but he also appeared to Joshua as Captain of the Host of
the Lord and in a similar way, we also may entertain strangers who are
angels unaware.
At least we can agree that Jesus was in the order of Melchizedek and not
the inferior Levitical order.
Now I will address Authority: You put in quotes something I did not
post: "I have the ability to decide on every point of doctrine what's
right and what's wrong". I do not believe this, but I do believe I John
2:20; "ye have an unction from the Holy One and ye know all things." and
verse 27; " But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in
you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing
teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it
hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
I don't believe this is an issue between us.
You stated: "But if you decide that you know better than the gifted and
prepared individual who is trying to help you, you will believe nothing
you are taught and so your "learning" will only fuel arrogance without
at the same time contributing to spiritual growth." This is true,because
the "I" is in charge, not the Holy Spirit or Jesus.
I do not believe I know better, but I do have the Holy Spirit and if
something does not fit right or as John 10 says "the sheep did not hear
them." That is I can't hear that teaching, then I expect the Holy Spirit
to guide me to the truth. He can use various means to do that. The first
way is to confront my teacher and talk to him about it per Matt. 18.
This is just what we are doing and hopefully we can come to the truth
together. If we can't, well, there are some things we perhaps can't
grasp yet. I am always reminded of I Cor. 8:2. Iron sharpens iron,
nonetheless.
Final authority resides in "we the people" in the church and government,
but also the individual is responsible for what he believes. We end up
in heaven because of what we believe, not just because Jesus died on the
cross for our sins. Thus we are the final authority, just as the woman
who says yes or no, to the man asking her hand in marriage who just slew
the dragon about to consume her. There is no merit in making an idol out
of an authoritative shepherd, I am to make him my servant to lead me to
Christ's teaching. The unction from the Spirit should confirm all
things.
Your point 2): I have no idea what your are talking about here, but you
clearly are not "hearing what I am saying". It's pretty simple. If I
compare you to a Frenchman you are by definition not "that particular
Frenchman". It takes a complete lack of understanding of language to
willfully refuse to get that point.
Your point 3): He is the 2nd person, not the third (that is the Spirit).
The fact that Christophanies occurred – they certainly did – does NOT
necessitate that THIS was a Christophany. It was not.
On authority:
1st John 2:20
But as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you,
and you have no need for anyone to teach you [this (i.e., v.26 and
previous)]. But just as His anointing teaches you about all things and is
true and not false, so also as He has taught you, remain in Him.
1st John 2:27
Ephesians 4:11-13 NIV
In Jesus who is the very Word of truth.
Bob L.
I had an answer your last post about Melchizedek and Authority, but I'm not
going to post it because before God it is not profiting spiritually for both of
us.
It is petty to argue about this minor point in regard to Melchizedek which has
extended to the more important subjects of tongues and authority, and use it to
divide from a brother in Christ. Obviously Paul in Hebrews does not flatly state
that Melchizedek was the preincarnate Christ and solve all question.
Also, since there was a place apparently called Salem in those days as Josephus
attests to and it would seem strange that a Christophany would be king of it and
also a priest; I can see your point why you believe Melchizedek must have been a
man. Then again as well, in Joshua's day there was Adonizedek, king of
Jerusalem. Because of the similar name there must be some connection from the
past to Melchizedek.as well.
So I humble myself, embrace the cross, where Jesus died for us, and respect your
right to believe as you do about Melchizedek.
.
Regarding tongues and authority, I've spoken what I believe generally. I would
like to write more about these "important" subjects, but perhaps I've said
enough there as well.
Though I don't know you, I love you as my brother. I'm sure we have many things
in common though we haven't sat down for coffee about them.
Just to let you know, I was a pastor for 14 years and a Protestant prison
chaplain for 15 years as well as a National Guard chaplain, starting out in the
Field Artillery with 3 years active duty. Rev. Thieme, for the short time I was
in Houston changed my life. Because of him I entered the military and studied
Greek and Latin as an undergraduate major and some Hebrew, going on to seminary
and then the pastorate.
I am now retired and drive taxi part time.
God bless you and your ministry,
P.S. Please excuse my confusion about the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity. I
truly am embarrassed about that.
I agree that this point is not one on which I would separate. And it is
absolutely true that the cross, as I like to say, "answers all
questions, fulfills all promises, and refutes all lies". This is all
about Jesus Christ and what He's done for us.
No worries about 2nd vs. 3rd – I had a feeling that was a typo. Given
how many I commit, I certainly can't throw stones there!
Col. Thieme's ministry changed my life as well, and I had and still have
the utmost respect for him. That didn't keep me from going the other way
on doctrinal points when I was convinced by scripture, conscience and
the Spirit that the truth lay elsewhere. It's all about the truth. As I
also like to say, Christians should be helping each other draw closer to
the truth. Sometimes, oftentimes, this is a "circle in on it" process
wherein each circle draws closer in (rather than a bee-line to the
center). And it takes effort and strain. Eggs will be broken in making
this omelet. But it's worth it. And what a contrast to the vast majority
of lukewarm Laodicea which is spinning AWAY from the center of truth
under the pull of emotion, ritual and downright laziness.
So keeping plugging away, my friend. The truth is the truth and it
exerts it's own gravity -- for all who are willing to be drawn to it.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
I read on Ichthys a reader asking why God had Moses' staff become a snake since
a snake represents evil and they are instinctively considered disgusting animals
by most humans. Do you think that it was because God foreshadowed Moses
overcoming evil since he grabbed it's tail and conquered it in the same way he
would conquer Pharaoh's armies through God's power at the red sea and through
the plagues beforehand?
They die in their youth, among male prostitutes of the shrines.
Job 36:14 NIV
Does qodeshim (Heb. "holy") mean that these prostitutes were considered
holy in those days? Or does it mean the righteous will die like the temple
prostitutes?
I apologize for kicking a dead horse, but this one, for some reason, has me
flummoxed. Maybe, I'm over-thinking and should let it rest awhile.
Yours in Jesus,
Do not come near me,
For I am holier than you!'
These are smoke in My nostrils,
A fire that burns all the day.
Isaiah 65:5 NKJV
"Those who sanctify [i.e., "make holy"] themselves and purify
themselves,
To go to the gardens
After an idol in the midst,
Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
Shall be consumed together," says the LORD.
Isaiah 66:17 NKJV
They do not cry for help when He binds them."
Job 36:13 NKJV
Hope you're doing well, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Thank you for the answers in this last email posting. When he and I
discussed it and he said that you disagreed with my position, I wasn't
sure what the disagreement was. I didn't get a copy of the exchange from
him ( I neglected to ask for the same reason that you don't like to be
the last word for us in our discussions and debates).
Now that I've read them though, I think that maybe he misunderstood me a
bit judging by:
Apropos to the present discussion of Tamar, all this means that God
wouldn't "work through" sex outside of marriage (or "redeem it" due to
circumstances, or whatever) such that it would somehow not be at all
sinful for Tamar to do what she did (namely, dress up like a prostitute
and sleep with her father-in-law), right? Or is this train of logic
flawed in some place?
I think that what it adds up to is fine enough, but I suppose I wouldn't
have said "work through." I held that what she did was wrong in and of
itself but that God could certainly use it for His purposes just as
Adam's sin opened the way for the Messiah even though he should not have
sinned.
But I also gained some correction. I see your argument for being
generous to others whose circumstances and person we don't really know.
There's always so much more going on under the hood than we know so that
we should be much more hesitant about judging others than I was in that
case. I just couldn't see how we could judge sex that is not with a
husband as sin even if we were to bear with those who commit it since
they might have had pressures that we couldn't begin to imagine in our
own circumstances.
I took away from the discussion that once we "miss the turn" and make
the wrong decision, we tend to end up in a complicated situation that
human beings become unable to judge righteously. At that point, humility
calls for us to disengage and just trust that God will judge everything
correctly. As for lessons, we can take two: (1) Don't miss the turn; (2)
God can do much more than we imagine with the mess that we make of
things. Beyond that, best to be reserved in judgment.
Your student in Jesus
No worries on reported conversation or your interpretation. I make it a
point not to put any particular stock in any third hand reports, so I
focused on what had been written to me.
Also, I think it is of course prudent when teaching the Bible to warn
off one's listeners from anything sexual or suggestive. We certainly
would want to be careful about giving anyone the impression that there
was anything in what Tamar did that we would want someone to duplicate!
And immature Christians get all sorts of odd ideas, believe me. So
putting a warning context around that episode is important.
But it is true that we have to interpret based upon all the information
we are given. If a woman is raped, we certainly cannot suggest that she
did anything wrong. Being pressured by the king of Israel may not have
made Bathsheba's situation a legally, technical rape, but it was close,
even if she was not without a measure of responsibility for her prior
actions. And in fact it may be so close as to make not much of a
difference. Similarly, in Tamar's case, putting a woman in that day and
age into that situation – being made an "un-person", essentially, by
wrongly shutting her off from marriage and progeny through no fault of
her own – was likewise to subject her to force majeure, an unacceptable
necessity (the way it was perceived in those days) which required
desperate action. Remember that she was almost burned to death – and so
she surely would have understood that such might have been the penalty
even so; only Judah's righteous response saved her from that fate. She
thus clearly felt that the very real possibility of a horrible death was
better than the status quo, and we have to take that into account in our
interpretation.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I wondered what you think of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. In my opinion, both
became believers through their relationship with Daniel. I base this on Daniel 4
for the former and Daniel 6:26-27 and 11:1 compared with Psalm 34:7 and Matthew
18:10 for the latter. Nebuchadnezzar throws me off a bit with Daniel 4:8. I
wonder about the "name of my god" bit and whether he essentially just took God
on as maybe the greatest of all gods, but not the only God.
Your student in Jesus
As to Belshazzar, given the description of him and his behavior in
Daniel chapter five, I'm surprised that you think so. I think you must
mean Darius. That is possible based upon Daniel chapter six and his
reaction to Daniel's miraculous deliverance. I'm a bit puzzled by your
Psalm 34:7 and Matthew 18:10 references, however.
Thanks for keeping me in the loop!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
That was a typo! Wow! I didn't realize that I said Belshazzar until I
read your email. I suspect it was because Belshazzar was in my reading
in the morning just before I emailed you. I meant Darius.
About Psalm 34:7 and Matthew 18:10, I was referring to the fact that the
elect angels are given by the Lord to protect believers, not
unbelievers. In Daniel 11:1, a high-ranking angel takes on the duty to
"support and protect" Darius. Maybe kings and all rulers are granted
some of this irrespective of their attitude to God, but I'm not sure
that I know any part of the Bible that suggests that. If this angel
takes on the duty to support Darius then, does that strengthen the
possibility that he became a believer in his first year, maybe from the
experience with Daniel in the lions' den?
Will try to be regular with the updates, Sir.
Your student in Jesus
You seldom make typos or mistakes (unlike yours truly), so I thought
maybe you meant Darius.
As to angels, well, the "guardian angels" of Matthew 18:10 are for all
children – and most of them do not grow up to be believers. And, yes, we
know that there is a special warfare going on around leaders of nations
(e.g., Dan.10:20-21). Darius was clearly impressed by the miracle, and
he said what all these rulers say when they witness the power of God –
but whether or not that means that he/they have put their faith in Him
for salvation, well, that's hard for me to tell from what we have.
Keeping you in prayer.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Hope you and everyone around you are keeping well.
I need your help! How do you explain this passage, in a way that is
consistent with God’s pure and holy character.
2 Samuel 16:10-11
10 But the king said, “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?
So let him curse, because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David.’ Who
then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’ ” 11 And David said to Abishai
and all his servants, “See how my son who came from my own body seeks my
life. How much more now may this Benjamite? Let him alone, and let him
curse; for so the Lord has ordered him.
Thanks In Advance, Your Loving Brother In Christ,
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
In Matthew 22:43 Jesus said, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’
saying:…..
In this case, when David says “So let him curse, because the Lord has said to
him, ‘Curse David.’ Who then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’ ” Is he not also
speaking in the Spirit?
God Bless
In this case, I wouldn't read too much into it. As I mentioned before, this is
David accepting his discipline from the Lord, and, indeed, in the end the Lord
did restore him . . . and put Shimei to shame.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Hope this letter finds you well! Just like to run some Bible study
questions by you to see what you think on these issues/topics.
1. Tattoos has become quite fashionable and popular among Christians and
even among ministers and pastors. However, as far as I understand, the
Bible clearly prohibits it in Lev 19:28. And there are many other verses
to admonish us to take care of our bodies as it is the temple of God.
Also, we are told to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, our bodies
belong to the Lord, so we are not at liberty to do what we want to our
bodies. But recently I have heard Christians saying that they have
studied the Bible and cannot find anything wrong with tattoos as the
Bible says nothing against it. So I just want to bring this topic to you
to see how would you respond?
2. Regarding Jonah. Did Jonah die in the belly of the fish? His prayers
mentioned he cries out from the belly of Sheol and many other references
could lead to the conclusion that he was dead and cried out from hell.
Also, Jesus said that he would be in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights
just like Jonah in the belly of the whale. Jonah was definitely as type
of Jesus' death and resurrection in that regard. So could it be that he
did die in the fish?
3. Regarding teachings and insights coming from the Talmudic tradition.
How much weight do you place on the understandings of the Old Testament
coming from the Talmudic tradition? There are many Talmudic traditions
that fills in on many of the background information according to their
understanding and tradition. So how should Christians use or not use
those to further understand the Bible?
Thank you for your ministry and the Bible studies you have made
available to all of us out there!
God bless,
1) On tattoos, first, here are some links to prior postings on this
subject:
2) "Jonah was definitely as type of Jesus' death and resurrection in
that regard". That is certainly true. However, typology is meant to
convey only certain points of similarity, not to be exact in every
detail (it is never that). Jonah was "gone" for three days and three
nights, under the sea, as far as anyone was concerned, the place of
death. But God brought him back from there in a miraculous way. It
occurs to me that if physical death and resuscitation had been the plan,
there would have been no need for a whale (Heb. literally "great fish").
Nothing is impossible for God, but I don't find anything in the passage
that suggests physical death, and, as I say, the fact of the whale
rescuing him from drowning convinces me that such was not the case. It
has been opined that Jonah's appearance was altered by this experience
as well. Being soaked in gastric juices that long might have bleached
his clothes and hair and skin bright white -- and made his appearance to
the people of Nineveh all the more shocking.
3) "How much weight do you place on . . . Talmudic tradition?" Zero,
essentially. The Talmud is basically a commentary on the Mishnah, which
is a commentary on the Pentateuch. It is possible that there is some
antiquarian information in the Mishnah which may be helpful to some and
may be true, but a) it's difficult to tell since the Mishnah was written
several centuries after the fall of Jerusalem, and b) it is concerned
with niceties of the Law, sacrifice and the like, which have no
particular spiritual significance, even if true. The Talmud was written
some five more centuries later and is thus a commentary on a commentary
about issues of a non-spiritual nature written by unbelievers who reject
on principle the truth of the Word of God. I've spent sufficient time on
these materials to satisfy myself, moreover, that it's not a profitable
undertaking for believers to pursue them in gruesome detail.
Additionally, the Talmud is written in Aramaic, so it's not even helpful
for understanding biblical Hebrew.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Thank you very much for your answer to the questions. I have some follow
up discussion if you don't mind!
1. The articles that you have written on tattoos are very helpful and I
think you addressed many of the concerns and reasons of not getting a
tattoo, especially from the point of walking a separated, holy and
sanctified life, that has to be distinguishable from the walks of the
World and the fashion of this age. However, I disagree that even though
most of the people getting tattoos are not actively doing a pagan
ritual, the origin of this very act is definitely evil and is related to
worshiping the dead as the Bible indicates, and supported by evidence
from historical records we have from many other cultures. So I am
thinking that this very act IS part of the pagan ritual, even if the
participants do not realize or understand its significance. I think they
err in ignorance, but this act definitely does not originate from the
natural order God has created. And it is not commanded by God for us to
do so (counter point: circumcision is commanded by God in the Old
Covenant). So I think we cannot disassociate acts that originated from
pagan rituals from its spiritual meaning.
Also, would you agree that Cain was the first person that was marked
(tattooed)? And his mark is also related to the mark of the beast. And
as you know many cultures tattoo their prisoners and criminals, probably
following this principle of the mark of Cain? However, I also agree that
it is clear from the Word of God that getting a tattoo is not going to
send someone to help, not for that reason.
2. About Rabbinical Talmuds and etc. I totally understand that as
Christians we should not take too much in what the Talmuds teaches,
especially concerning doctrines. However, I am wondering if some of the
extra historical "insights" and some "insights" related to the Hebrew
language can be gleaned from it?
For example, in Exodus 13:18, it talked about Israel went up harnessed
(armed) out of the land of Egypt. And from what I have read, that word
could be a different word if the vowels are placed differently and
meaning "5th" or "one out of 5". So the LXX version I have reads, "in
the fifth generation of the children of Israel went up out of the land
of Egypt". But according to some rabbi, that word could mean "one out of
five", so they concluded that only one of out 5 Israelites left Egypt
with Moses. For this interpretation, perhaps there are some
contradictions with other parts of the Word of God, but it also lines up
with the principle of freedom of choices that God gives to people. We
know some Egyptians, mixed multitudes left with the Israelites, so could
it be also true that some Israelites choose to stay behind in Egypt?
Perhaps I am wrong here, but I am thinking maybe these other ways of
looking at scriptures are not totally worthless? Perhaps we can view
some of them with caution?
Another example maybe less meaningful, which is that according to
rabbinical tradition, Orpah, Ruth's sister in law, became the mother of
Goliath and his brothers. Historically, it is questionable, if we assume
Goliath and the giants have a normal human span of life, since Ruth was
David's great grandmother.
However, compare these traditions to Christian Church's tradition, such
that Peter was crucified upside down and many other Church (catholic)
traditions, I would think they both probably belong to similar
categories in terms of their moral and teaching values? Or should we
place more value on traditions passed down from the Church?
Anyway, thank you as always for your time and effort to share God's
Word!
God bless,
As to Cain, we don't know what the mark was but it was not a tattoo
since God gave it to Him and God doesn't do tattooing (see
the link). Since God is the origin of the "sign" ('oth
= sign; not tav = mark) for Cain meant for good and since the
devil is the source of the mark of the beast (which IS a humanly
produced tattoo) meant for evil, they clearly have zero in common.
2. I think your own analysis here gives some idea of the "value" of this
traditional material. I.e., it has very little. As far as playing with
the text is concerned, anyone can do that, changing the vowels, e.g., if
one has a knowledge of Hebrew. The LXX is not nearly as valuable as
often supposed; the Masoretic text is solid, but the LXX's is not. It
occasionally gives us some insights, but in a very limited way. So in
short I wouldn't put any stock in any of these possibilities you
mention; they may tickle the ear but they lead away from the truth.
That's the sort of thing you can expect unbelievers to produce, after
all. N.B., most of the stuff in the Church fathers is equally
questionable. We have the Bible. We should pay attention to that.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I'm reading through Part 1: Theology in your Bible Basics series and I'm going
over the verses you insert with my 1599 Geneva Bible. I also use Bible Hub as a
reference for other translations. When you talk about God's infinite nature you
insert Deuteronomy 6:4 NASB:
Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.
1599 Geneva translation:
Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is Lord only,
It appears one version—along with the NIV, ESV, BSB, NKJV, KJV, CSB, etc.—is
talking about the Trinity (which I believe in) and the other seems to be
emphasizing that the Lord is our only God which leads to the point of idolatry;
specifically not having any other gods and realizing there is only One worthy of
our praise and worship. Other versions including the NLT, CEV, GNT, ISV, GWT,
Tyndale 1526 ("onely" instead of "only" but are essentially the same in
meaning), etc. translate it this way as well stating the Lord is the only God.
There is only one God v. God is one.
Q: Am I interpreting these wrong and they mean the same thing or do certain
versions translate it wrong? How do you reconcile these two translations if
they're both correct in their rendering of the verse?
I'm just curious because some translations are better than others and I would
not like relying on an inaccurate one. Either way your point regarding oneness &
infinity still works but it caught my eye,
Under God is Unique you state this: "He is unique by virtue of His omnipotence,
omniscience and omnipresence." In parenthesis you cite Deut. 6:4 along with
other verses. In conjunction with the others you cited (especially the ones in
Isaiah 43), as they all are about God being unique and there being no other like
him, it would seem you used Deut. 6:4 to further your point that He is the only
one.
Based on that, am I right to assume the 1599 Geneva version is more accurate
than the NASB/KJV in the translation of this verse? The verse was meant to talk
about God's uniqueness as opposed to His essence (the Trinity).
If not then let me know,
Thanks.
Good to make your acquaintance.
The Hebrew word 'echadh means "one" but sometimes also has the
connotation of "unique" as in "the only one"; or as we say in English
"he is the one". In terms of interpretation, in this verse "God" is 'Elohiym
which is technically a plural, while "LORD" is the tetragrammaton. Thus,
how any version takes this verse has to do more with interpretation than
possibility of translation. All translations are interpretations. So
when we say "more accurate" we mean either 1) more in accord with the
interpretation we feel is correct or 2) more "word for word" in terms of
a pedestrian rendering from one language to another. Either method can
produce good or bad results in terms of correctly understanding a
passage. All of the versions you mention have defensible translations.
The question is, what does the verse really mean? And for that one has
to understand it 1) in Hebrew, and 2) according to a correct doctrinal
appreciation from the standpoint of the Bible generally.
Here is a link on that you may find helpful:
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I hope all is well with you. I have a question if you’re able to answer. A
friend of ours has been unsuccessfully trying to find help for their child with
developmental problems. They asked us our opinion on generational curses which
we know nothing about other than briefly hearing about them. A holistic health
practitioner said the child may have a generational curse that needs broken. It
sounded like a new age practice. We know the practitioner and they claim to be
Christian but personally we steer clear of them professionally because of their
other new age practices, namely energy work. Do you have any insight on this
biblically? Are they biblical? And if so are they likely to occur and be broken?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
What does that have to do with believers today? Precious little, except
to reinforce the principle that while we can expect the Lord to bless
those who belong to us if we are steadfast in following and serving Him,
at some point every tub has to stand on its own bottom (as my old mentor
used to say): we are all ultimately responsible for our own choices
in this life.
In terms of the nonsense being reported to your friend, this is clearly
ridiculous – or would be if such things were not so incredibly
dangerous. Christians are well-advised to stay away from "witch doctors"
of every sort, even if they pretend to be believers.
Here are those links:
Bob L.
Job 26:5 has always mystified me. In the KJV, I read "Dead things are formed
from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." I take it that the italics
indicates an interpolation. The verse would stand well without it. However, NKJV,
NIV and CEB are all radically different. What is actually meant in this verse? I
have to admit, that verse as never made sense to me.
I have to comment that 26:7 says, "[God] hung earth over nothing" which
indicates knowledge they couldn't have possibly had back then. Or so we're
taught. That suggests to me a sophistication that we under appreciate (and over
appreciate ours.) I wonder what else we don't know.
Another question on the pronunciation for the land of Uz: OOOtz (Uz.) How do we
know how ancient Hebrew, or any other ancient language, was pronounced.
Considering spoken American English, British English and Australian English. or
the way New Yorkers, Yoopers and Texans pronounce American English, I couldn't
draw any conclusions. They are all different. I'm not arguing; just curious.
In our Lord,
Job 26:5
On the description of the cosmos in scripture and in Job in particular,
yes indeed, there was a much better assessment of the celestial
mechanics at that time generally than is often credited nowadays (see
the link: "Does
the Bible ever describe the earth as being round?").
On pronunciation, much time and effort has been devoted to these matters
by scholars over the years, many of whom have serious linguistic
"chops". While you are right that there are time and place differences
in English, for the most part the language is understandable by all its
speakers within the broad parameters of a "basic pronunciation" (rural
Scotland and rural Northern Ireland aside). The same is true of many
ancient languages such as the biblical ones (and I'm reasonably
confident that we know what those parameters are, understanding that
there were always dialectical variations (cf. Judg.12:5-6). In terms of
Greek, Latin and Hebrew, the ones I'm interested in, it's not as if we
are starting from nothing since none of the three ever went completely
extinct. So the starting point is working backward from what presently
exists (or existed, from the 19th century perspective when a lot of the
difficult work was done). For the first two languages, moreover, we have
a number of ancient grammars and many texts which discuss the
pronunciation of words and letters and related issues. For Hebrew, we
have the benefit of a plenty of other Semitic languages each of which
bear strong resemblances to each other in structure and also in
pronunciation. Just to give one example, we know that the letter beta in
Greek is a hard "b" even though in Modern Greek it has morphed into a
"v" because in ancient Greek sheep say "beta-eta", that is beh, beh
– and I've never heard of a sheep saying anything like veh, veh.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
It does raise an interesting question: what unimaginable evil was
covered with the flood? Do we face that again? Am I correct in assuming
that there was not only a reason to make Job cryptic but that it was
written for these later days?
You raise an interesting point about those old languages, though I
wonder about Latin. I don't know anything about the other two.
Ecclesiastical Latin seems only remotely related to classical Latin, at
least in pronunciation. Or at least as I remember. It's been a long,
long time ago.
Which version of Job do you recommend?
Note: "veh, veh" is something a Jewish grandmother would say! Maybe with
an Oy prepended. At least, as I remember.
As to before the flood, in a sense I suppose you're right. The only
nephilim which scripture identifies besides those of Genesis chapter six
is antichrist (Gen.3:15). I have also opined that the ten kings of
Revelation (Rev.17:12; 17:16; cf. Rev.12:3; 13:1; 17:3; 17:7) may also
be demon seed, partly for the reason that they are singled out, partly
because of the strong support they give the beast which is contrary to
human behavior at any other time in history (rulers of nations and
empires such as these will be generally looking out for their own
interests).
As to Job, I don't find the book cryptic. The truth therein is
completely consistent with everything else in scripture. The language in
Job is difficult, however. In terms of versions, I like the 1984 NIV
generally and my sense is that it is pretty good on Job as well (even
though there are some places where I wouldn't agree with their take –
but that is true with any version I read one place or another).
As to Latin, ecclesiastical pronunciation is almost identical to the
classical, "w" instead of "v" and "ch" instead of "c" in the former
being the only two major differences I've noted.
On "oy vey", I thought about going there, but . . .
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Nitpicks: In response #5, (10/8/22) your quote of Matthew 16:24, you write
"...take up his cross (defense)..." Did you mean "offense"? And in response #13,
you write "These are the ones who are about to come forth from the Great
Tribulation." Did you mean "have come" instead of "about to come"?
On Job: you write that Job 3:16 "does suggest that stillborn children are saved"
which is the way the NKJV & NIV translates it. I never understood that as being
saved. Rather "why was I ever born." It's my understanding that still born
children have died in the womb. If so, that would also apply, I think, to
aborted fetuses. Making the medical "professionals" who perform those abortions
murderers?
In my last email, I wrote that I thought Job was cryptic. Probably a poor choice
of words. Difficult to understand is more appropriate. I was/am looking for
answers that are probably there but I haven't understood yet.
Finally, thoughts: This weeks email posting (10/8/22) had folks arguing about
"soul sleep." I agree with you. Particularly the Arbraham/Lazarus example which
is different than all the Lord's parables. But even so, I think it makes little
difference. When we sleep, there is no sense of the passage of time.
Also, in the Lazarus example, the rich man's asking for water plus the Lord
comment at the Last Supper that he would not enjoy bread or wine until they were
together again suggests that we too will enjoy food and wine after resurrection.
It's probably idle to speculate on any of this since life here will end here and
continue in a far different place. Either way.
I still believe that the Tribulation will grow steadily from here on out until
the Lord has finally had enough. I don't remember such insanity on such a
worldwide scale before. I read about the killings in our cities (Austin is
joining that group) and it reminds me of the daily casualty reports during the
Vietnam adventure. In the drive-by headlines (scan-by for me, really) it appears
that the US and NATO continue to provoke Russia, whom I believe is showing
remarkable restraint. WWIII, though, I now believe is coming which may be the
reason the beast steps in to save the day. I think the Ukrainian adventure would
have ended early on if we hadn't been shipping in weapons and mercs. I believe
Russia and China have carefully noted our depletion of weapons for our defense.
So yes, Satan is prepping the battlefield and setting up the end of the West.
I'll be happy when it's all over.
In our Lord,
On "about to come" vs. "have come", the former is actually what the
Greek says. Most versions go with the latter because of the way English
processes the "epistolary tense" issue, that is, we tend to anticipate
what the situation will be when the letter is received; Greek often puts
things in terms of the actual time/tenses at the time of writing. In
this case, what John sees is a vision which has not yet been fulfilled
since the Tribulation was far future at that point, so it is technically
correct (and what the Greek actually says).
On Job 3:16, the verses which follow envision the hypothetical of a
person in that or a similar situation not ever having existed but being
down in the underworld (Hades/paradise/torments). Generally speaking,
scripture describes God as giving life at full term normal birth (see
the link), but this verse among others suggest to me that
miscarriages are treated by Him in the same way in terms of providing a
spirit (so that they are "persons" and will be in heaven). There's not
enough biblical evidence in my opinion to say more than that. The Bible
doesn't call abortion murder nor even inadvertently induced miscarriage
homicide (cf. Ex.21:22), but given that it is never actually mentioned
in the Bible, and given that sacrificing one's children is definitely
deemed an abomination, and further given the high value placed by
scripture on children, even in the womb, we may be sure what God's
opinion of medically unnecessary abortion is. But I also don't see any
biblical mandate for getting exercised about what unbelievers do, even
though we believers find it abominable. Politics is always of the devil.
There are plenty of indications that there will be "eating and drinking"
in resurrection (e.g., Is.25:6-8). The tree of life in New Jerusalem
will bear twelve different types of fruit – obviously to be eaten.
Whatever trouble we're seeing now will pale in comparison to the actual
Tribulation. But it is fair to observe that we are clearly rolling
towards it, and that the breakdown in restraints we are seeing is a big
part of that – broken restraints on every level. The Spirit is still
restraining much to prevent the commencement of the Tribulation and the
revelation of antichrist before their time (2Thes.2:1-12), but that
doesn't mean that the devil is not trying to get as many of his ducks in
a row before that – I've no doubt that this is just what he is doing.
Also, this is all in the plan of God. There's no point in getting upset
with policy mistakes and policy idiocies coming from this country. In
the end, Babylon will not be saved.
RE: "I'll be happy when it's all over." – won't we all! Much
happier than at present we have any idea.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend – and thanks much for yours.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Thank you for the Revelation explanation. I would never have understood
that on my own. That actually casts a light on many other parts of
Scripture, too.
You also raised another interesting question with your Isaiah reference.
That is wine on the lees vs. refined (Isaiah 25:6) in the KJV. NIV is a
more understandable but says something quite different. Wine, today, is
generally taken off the lees early on then aged. I suspect wine left
longer on the lees would be healthier in the short term and vinegar not
too long after. What is really being said here?
Interesting that you say politics is of the devil. I've come to the
conclusion that not only politics but everything coming from politics is
evil. When the Lord told Samuel what kind of king they would have, he
sugar coated it. (1 Samuel 8:11-18) It's interesting comparing that to
what we have today.
Thank you for your explanations and prayers. You are in my prayers as
well. How is your niece doing?
In our Lord,
That is one thing about absolute monarchy: the only options for politics
therein is 1) court politics (of which we ordinary folk have no part) .
. . or 2) rebellion. Absalom was a case of both – as was the devil's
initial and continuing rebellion against the Lord.
They're doing well – thanks for asking. And thanks for all of your
prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
"He alone spreads out the heavens,
And treads on the waves of the sea"
specifically the second line. Neat huh?
It is also interesting to me all the things he says about how in his
eyes the Lord is crushing and hurting Him without cause, and this is not
considered not-keeping-his-integrity.
And also that he admits that he has done wrong, but will not agree with
his friends that he has done something/is unrighteous. I mean he overall
disagrees but in his paragraphs he does say he isn't righteous (but I
think he means it like one would say they are not perfect). And so this
group seem to have this idea of righteousness not being from perfection
(ie works) but from trusting in the Lord (9:15).
. . . or am I reading wrong?
In a nutshell, Job was right that his troubles had nothing to do with
him turning away from the Lord or even becoming involved in some sinful
behavior that was not the case before. We know from the first two
chapters that he was exceptional. No one is perfect, of course, but Job
rated the Lord bragging on him to the devil!
So Job's friends were wrong because they couldn't comprehend how all
this had happened to him if he weren't guilty – which he was not. Job
was wrong because he lost his patience with the Lord and stopped
trusting Him absolutely. In his defense, while it may seem that all this
happened in a couple of days, we can tell from the fact that his friends
came from very great distances (and would have needed to communicate
first from the same), that this "test" may have lasted years long (see
the link). So Job was wrong (but who of us would have done better?),
and his friends were "more wrong" (but they also didn't have the Book of
Job to go to school on). We know that this is the "bottom line" because
of 1) the Lord's rebuke of Job at the end of the book, but 2) his
friends need him to make intercession for them in order to be forgiven.
The book of Job is a great blessing to have. If we remember the lessons
therein, we will be loath to start complaining every time something goes
seriously wrong when it doesn't seem to be our fault. An important
perspective to have in preparation for the soon to come Tribulation.
In Jesus,
Bob L.