http://ichthys.com/ 
Biblical Anthropology XI:  

Question #1:   
Hello Dr., 

The two children passed away, if you could update the prayer request to strength and comfort for the Brice family it will be appreciated. Can’t imagine the heartbreak they’re going through. I’m reminded of Isaiah 57:1.

Sorry to hear about you sewer problem, I know how pricey that can be, I see the permits all the time, not to mention the inconvenience. Hope you’re in a nice Air B&B at least. I’ll be in touch.

All the best,
Response #1:
Very sad. But we know they are in heaven now (link: Infant Salvation). Isaiah 57 says it all.
The righteous perish, and no one takes it to heart; the devout are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death.
Isaiah 57:1-2 NIV
The above seems to me to be doubly true nowadays, and especially on the eve of the Tribulation. No one would wish what happened on anyone – but for children to be guaranteed salvation and deliverance from all the trouble ahead, well, I hope it is some solace for this family.

Thanks for the compassion and the prayers. Good news! They begin repairs tomorrow and should be done by Thursday PM. Needed a new electrical box for a pump for washing machine since rerouting the line to save time, effort and digging, which they "comped" for me. So instead of buying a new Tesla, in terms of price I'm only buying a new Ford Focus.

I'll be back in my home soon. This has been a bit rattling, but the battle goes on nevertheless. God is good!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
Does this imply abortion is not murder? Copied from your material “Satanic Rebellion” Part 3:
Though His body was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ entered the world when we all do: at birth.(26) This explains why at Matthew 1:20-21 the angel can tell Joseph "that which has been engendered in her is from the Holy Spirit, and she will give birth to a Son", and why at Luke 1:35 Gabriel can tell Mary "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for this very reason that which is going to be born will be called holy, the Son of God". Both the grammar of these passages (Greek neuters: "that which") and the prophecies here which are both primarily concerned with the birth of Christ (as is the case of all the Messianic prophecies; cf. Jdg.13:7; Is.7:14; 9:6-7; Lk.1:15), make it clear that it is not His conception, but His birth that is our Lord's point of entrance into the world after the pattern by which we have all entered it: the physical birth of our bodies followed by God's breathing into us of our human spirit. The star of Bethlehem and the angelic chorus that herald His arrival are celebrating not His conception but His birth (Lk.2:8-20), the point when He first drew breath as a human being (albeit the only divine One: Phil.2:6-7; Heb.2:14), for that is the point at which the Father brought His Son "into the world":
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
Hebrews 1:6 NIV

The Spirit of God made me, and the breath of the Almighty gave me life.
Job 33:4
So once again we return to the analogy of breath, a function of our physical life that only occurs after birth and ends with death. Breath, a manifestation of physical life which (while not synonymous with it) is coterminous with that life, is therefore the perfect symbol and analogy for the life that begins at birth, when God puts our human spirit into our body. This is why Jesus, to explain our need for eternal life, told us we must be born again, not "conceived again", for birth is the point where life begins by means of an act of God, whether it be the first or the second birth (Jn.3:3).
Response #2:
Rather, things are the other way around. Political activists who put their agendas over what the Bible actually teaches imply, by calling abortion murder, that God is not the author of human life, but that instead human life is merely biologically generated. That is also what atheists, materialists, and communists, etc. believe. But the Bible teaches that God is the Creator of the human spirit, placing that spirit in each human being at birth. That is the truth. It does not mean or imply that willful abortion for no other reason than personal convenience is not horrific. Clearly it is. Here is a footnote from that same reference you may have missed:
This is not at all to imply that for this reason the fetus has no worth in God's eyes. Quite to the contrary, the unborn are highly valued in scripture (Ex.21:22; Job 10:8-12; Ps.139:13-16; Is.44:24; 49:4-5). Further we may note that in the Bible children are considered a great blessing (cf. 1Sam.2:1-11 and Lk.1:46-55), with infertility seen as a curse (Hos.9:14; cf. Gen.38; Lev.20:20-21; 1Sam.1:11), and pregnancy as a blessing and occasionally even a means of justification (cf. Num.5:11-31 and Lk.1:25). Whereas, on the other hand, the sacrifice of children is an abomination (Lev.18:21; Deut.12:31; 18:10; Ps.106:37-38).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Yes, I did miss that footnote.

Even so, and I’m not disagreeing here, but if what you wrote is true, and it does seem so, then there is a significant difference between unborn and born children.

This is not something I would actually share with anyone else, but it is something to consider.

Thank you for your response.
Response #3:
I'm not sure what the practical difference would be . . . for a believer. After all, no believer is likely to be wanting to abort their child. What unbelievers do is not for us a great matter of concern, or at least it shouldn't be. We want all to be saved as God does. But whether they are acting morally or not beforehand should not be our prime concern – as if, for example, a sober unbeliever is any closer to heaven than a drunk unbeliever, e.g. 

This is one of the devil's traps. He always wants to get believers involved in political crusades, because once sucked into such things, no further spiritual advance is likely; rather, spiritual regression is the most likely thing. Think how much damage the temperance movement did to believers in this country in the prior century. And think how many unbelievers were turned off from Christianity on the basis of what is an entirely false proposition: just as abortion before God has created the spirit within the unborn may not technically be taking a life (although it is undeniably horrible), so also alcohol use is not necessarily sinful (although there is much abuse and a good deal of danger for many people in imbibing).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Thanks for following up. I suppose what struck me was the clarity. I’m big on clarity and facts.

I’m actually new to your work. Came across you through a Facebook group where one of your adherents (who I’m certain was not authorized by you) blew the group up and was kicked off. Not the best advertisement. But something he said piqued my curiosity and I followed up. Am reading through Satanic Rebellion and am intrigued.

Couldn’t agree with you more on the damage done by the Temperance Movement.

Will continue to read your material.

Thanks again,
PS: That Facebook group was “Theological Eschatology “; The Administrator promotes “New Creation Millennialism”
Response #4:
Thanks for the background, my friend.

I don't spend any time on Facebook to speak of (I do have to post notices on there for my university job a couple of times a year; that is pretty much it), so I don't know about this group or anyone connected to it. There have been plenty of people over the years who read Ichthys but who don't ever contact me.

Feel free to write me back.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I am trying to understand "life starts at birth". I am not disagreeing with this position and it makes sense to me, what I am trying to reconcile is, "how does the child move inside the mother prior to birth?"

When someone dies and the spirit leaves the body, they don't move anymore. What does an unborn child have that makes it move if it doesn't have a spirit? It is of course connected to the mom. How can we be "partially alive"? What about miscarriage, when the baby no longer moves? What "life" was there that isn't now? If the body is injured, we can die, which seems that we can't exist without body and spirit. I know I am missing something here, can you help me?

Was Adam moving before God gave him a spirit? Was he a special case since he was the first man?

Could God choose to implant a human spirit at conception even though the body was physical? Why would He wait until birth - then again, the body isn't fully formed until birth and if God makes "whole" people, is that why He waits until birth to give us full individuality?

Is our movement inside our mom just our body forming and "living" off of her life, and if medical, physical complications happen and the child can't be born "alive" it was material and not spiritual. Of course the child still has worth as a potential human, I am not implying that.

Another question I have often wondered: When it says God knits us together inside our mom, is He actively involved in the process of our growth? Or did God set the universe in motion and allow it to "run" except in specific times when He wants to do a physical miracle?

Awaiting your response. Thank you!

Respectfully,
Response #5:
These are all good (and somewhat difficult) questions. 

Scripture is very clear that life begins a birth (link).

In terms of movement, since the fetus is still connected to the mother, in a physical sense it is still a part of the mother. That was true when the first cells divided. From a spiritual point of view, there is no difference between a two cell embryo and an eight and a half month old fetus. They are both valuable to God; neither has yet had the "breath of life", the human spirit, created in them.

Miscarriages present a special problem which scripture does not directly address. God has the ability to create/place a spirit in an only partially formed or unborn child. Does He do so in each and every case when the connection is severed from the mother? While I suspect the answer is yes, I can't give a definitive answer because scripture does not – although there are passages consistent with that view, e.g.:
Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child,
Like infants who never saw light?
Job 3:16 NKJV

"Why then have You brought me out of the womb?
Oh, that I had perished and no eye had seen me!
I would have been as though I had not been.
I would have been carried from the womb to the grave."
Job 10:18-19 NKJV
Otherwise, the Bible does not spell things out precisely, and probably for good reason. Otherwise, Christians would be vexing themselves about IVF and whether it is moral and whether or not the product is a person (oops! I guess they already are).

As you note, scripture does say that God superintends the conception, growth and birth of us all. It also says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you", meaning that even before there was conception, the Lord knew and loved us all. But we didn't "come to be" until the human spirit, the real "us", was created. We know from scripture that this happens at birth.

There are some things about all this on the website.  Here are some links on this and related issues:
The Creation of Adam and the Human spirit
Soul versus Spirit
Body, Spirit and 'Soul', Present and Future
Our Heavenly, Pre-Resurrection, Interim State
And here are some general links of biblical anthropology which touch on these and related issues: 
BB 3A:  Biblical Anthropology
Biblical Anthropology I
Biblical Anthropology II
Biblical Anthropology III
Biblical Anthropology IV
Biblical Anthropology V
Biblical Anthropology VI
Biblical Anthropology VII
Biblical Anthropology VIII
Biblical Anthropology IX
Biblical Anthropology X
Life begins at birth
Apologies for the quick answer. It's late and I'm still not done preparing for work tomorrow (long story). Do feel free to write me back if there are any aspects of your questions I may have overlooked.

Keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I appreciate you taking time out of your evening the other night to write me, though you were short on time. I hope that your work preparation and Friday went well. I am writing now after looking at the link you sent me and thinking it over more. Again, not disagreeing, just trying to understand.

In the link, you wrote about Adam, his body and spirit not made simultaneously which I thought was interesting. Adam is different than us in that he had no mom. Would God change the way He imparts life or is He too consistent for that?

Jacob and Esau come to mind also. In Genesis 25:22, the twins are jostling one another. No matter if they did or did not have a spirit, I don't see how they themselves could have known why they were doing this? Is this prophetic due to what God says in the next verse and a special case?

My mind also went to Romans 9:10-11. My version says in verse 11, "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand:". Does "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad" talk about them in the womb or is it "before the twins were born", then they were born and then, "or had done anything good or bad (in the world)? I will tell you my thoughts, let me know if I'm missing something. Our human spirit, given to us at birth, makes us a whole person, morally accountable to God. Even though babies have a sin nature and commit sin, they are not held accountable for it if they die prior to the age of accountability, since Jesus died for all sin. If life began at conception, we would commit sin in the womb and that would make Romans 9:11 hard to interpret. Let me know if I'm missing something.

Since you mention it, is there a proper Christian perspective on IVF or does this go under "individual application"? Is this trying to "outsmart God" or go against His Will? On the other hand, if God puts our spirit into us at birth, we can't do anything to change that. Which unless I am mistaken, you mention that we would be entirely material if we started at conception. God is the only One who can give life, and He could choose to give the spirit at conception couldn't He? No matter when it happens, it's still God. God opened the wombs of God-honoring women in the Bible at their request. He controls birth/human population no matter if it starts at conception or birth, right?? Am I thinking too much?

I feel like I've kind of gotten mechanical in my spiritual life. In an email you wrote to someone, "Now an unbeliever can study "the doctrine of the Trinity" for example in an academic way so as to be able to "ace" a multiple choice test on it, but this would be knowledge only, not the "full knowledge" of scripture which believers have who have committed such truths to their hearts through faith, through believing them." How do I make sure I am doing the latter and not just "getting knowledge?" How do I do 2nd Corinthians 13:5?

What do you think about what they say, "condemnation comes from the enemy, conviction comes from God?" If I feel condemned, what do I do? I think of 1st John 3:20 too.

Thank you again for all the time and prayer.

Respectfully,
Response #6:
It's my pleasure, my friend – then and now.

Adam and Eve are different from in the way their bodies were formed; they are identical to us in the way that spiritual life is imparted.

Good point about the twins! There are many problems with assuming that physical procreation alone is the only basis of life. If that were true, since you ask about IVF, then indeed the Alabama supreme court would have it right: any fertilized egg is a person. That would mean that the RC church is correct too and any means of birth control which nixes a fertilized egg would be murder; and probably any method of birth control which prevents conception would be manslaughter or the like. No sane human being would want to accept this sort of thing but also no human being with a heart would be willing to accept the abortion of a near end of term baby on the basis of "it doesn't have a human spirit yet". These are political issues. We believers learn what the Bible actually says and make our own applications in the power of the Spirit based upon His testimony to our consciences, working with the truth we have learned and believed. And we don't worry about politics. If a married couple wants to exercise their right to family planning, that is their business. If they want to avail themselves of technological means in case of infertility, that is their business. Such things are between a husband a wife (or should be), and it's not the province of the state or the "church" to weigh in on them. Scripture says what it says; it doesn't say what it doesn't say. Scripture says nothing about IVF (for obvious reasons); but it also says nothing about birth control or abortion (even though they had both in antiquity). The reason? For any mature believer, in my opinion, it is very clear that the first is between spouses and the second something very terrible. But as I say, that is my opinion. I can only relate what scripture actually says. The argument that "abortion is murder" is not correct, and, if it were, then birth control would be murder too for exactly the same reasons.

Basically, I agree with everything you've written here. You are developing a very solid understanding of biblical truths, it seems to me. 

On that note, keep it up! Try to approach your Bible study not just as an obligation but as an opportunity. In other words, try to enjoy it and take pleasure in it. If you are doing too much or doing it in a way that strains rather than delights, try mixing things up (a little reading, a little listening to MP3s, etc.), and don't neglect reading your Bible for yourself (if you're not enjoying the version you're reading, then try another one). And remember, were doing all this in order to win an eternal reward. We're doing what Jesus wants us to do – and we love Him more than life. 

As to the statement, I try not to worry myself about statements that are not in the Bible but have to be interpreted as if they were. That is theologizing – and theologizing is always problematic. I'd rather look and see what the Bible says. Here is what it says:
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1 NIV
So you are NOT condemned. So if you are feeling you are, your feelings are leading you astray. Look at some of the passages that give you confidence and read/memorize them. And don't let a bad day or a bad feeling or a small mistake push you off your course (1Jn.1:9).
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.
1st Thessalonians 4:16-18 NIV
We will be with Jesus Christ forever as one perfect Bride – and I can't think of anything more encouraging than that.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

The referenced verse (Lev.24:11) is from your teaching on Evidence for the Seven Millennial years.

Verse 11 says, as you already know: "The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name[[of God]. and that his mother was the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

This reminds me of what you wrote about in one of your teachings also, that the antichrist will come from the tribe of Dan. Now I recall that the antichrist will greatly blaspheme the Name of God which leads me to believe that the scripture in Leviticus 24 is most likely a fore-shadow of what the antichrist will do in the tribulation.

On another point, and I know that you are well acquainted with the subject of abortion as the RCC views it. First of all, they know very little about scripture, and secondly, for whatever reason they propagate their doctrine on others as well.

We know from Genesis 2:7, that God breathed into the lifeless body of clay, that God created called Adam. But there was no life in that "clay" that God had formed until God Himself breathed the breath of life into it, and the man became a living being. 

We also know that when a person dies physically, the spirit that God gave at birth, goes back to God who gave it. The spirit lives forever, and if it has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they have eternal life with Jesus, but if they are not born again, they will spend and eternity in the Lake of Fire.

My question on this particular subject is: the baby in the womb is technically not living as the RCC claim, as that life as I previously stated only comes about when God puts a spirit within them at birth.

Am I thinking correctly on both points? What is your stance scripturally speaking about abortion, and do you have any teachings about this on your Website.

I would really appreciate if I could study anything you have on the subject.

I don't agree with a woman have an abortion, but I also don't agree with the way the RCC present it.

Will you please give me your thoughts on these subjects. I know I came across this before, and asked you about it, but I don't recall what you told me.

Thanks so much for your excellent help as always,

May God's blessings rest upon you always,

Your friend,
P.S. I would venture to say that at least 95% of what they call Christianity today had the knowledge that could gain by information on your Website. It is incredible, from my life experience, how much so called Christians don't know, and I am by no stretch of ones imagination an expert on God's Word, but I have learned so much from your Website, that I well know that others whom I talk with and in the past taught the Scriptures to, and much of it has been from your teachings, have never heard a multitude of scriptural information I have obtained, and am still in the process of doing. Would that everyone would come to know all the things you have posted It takes lots of study, that they are not willing to do.
Response #7:
Thanks for the confirmation on the first part.

On the second, yes, you are exactly correct. We human beings are not merely the result of natural procreation – as the Marxists and other materialists would say. We Christians know – or should know – that we are spiritual as well as physical. So when does God create the spirit within us? Scripture always focuses on birth, not conception, in this regard, and that parallels, as you note, Adam's original creation: FIRST the body is prepared; THEN God puts in the spirit.

This is of course NOT to justify abortion, nor is it to say that premature births were never given life by God (some passage, e.g., Job 3:10-11; 3:16; 10:18-19, certainly suggest that they are) – just that life, spiritual life, begins when God puts in the human spirit, and that occurs outside of the womb, not within it.

Here's a major link on that which leads to others: Life begins at birth

Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words, my friend! They mean a great deal and are greatly appreciated.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, just a quick one for you. 

If the human spirit is given by God to a person at birth, wouldn't this mean all babies that die in the womb weeks or even months before their due time go into nothingness? I say this because how can a person who never had life and, therefore, a human spirit, inherit eternal life (since eternal bodies require a human spirit)? I don't know where I stand on this issue but there are many who believe babies that die in the womb go to heaven. They most certainly go to heaven after birth, we all believe that. But long before birth? How can this be if they had no spirit? 

If we say they do go to heaven, how is that not acknowledging that life begins at some point in the womb? I just don't see how one could argue that away. 

In Christ, 
Response #8:
Scripture is clear that God forms our bodies (e.g., Jer.1:5), but also that He creates our spirits (e.g., Zech.12:1; Heb.12:9), doing the former over the term and the latter at the point of physical birth (cf. Heb.10:5). But scripture says little about the issue of the stillborn (here is one email on the topic at the link). As I say at the link, nothing is impossible with the Lord. God is not precluded from creating a spirit for every stillborn child and taking it directly to heaven after the pregnancy is terminated. That would not be in conflict with any of the verses cited above (or any other verse of which I am aware), and it wouldn't mean that the spirit had been previously created before that point. But it would mean that God creates the spirit outside of the womb and not within the womb – and that is the point at issue. Here are a couple of passages that are certainly consistent with God giving life to every fetus that exits the womb, regardless of the circumstances:
Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child,
Like infants who never saw light?
Job 3:16 NKJV

"Why then have You brought me out of the womb?
Oh, that I had perished and no eye had seen me!
I would have been as though I had not been.
I would have been carried from the womb to the grave."
Job 10:18-19 NKJV
Job conceives of himself as existing as himself in these hypotheticals.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Thanks! 

Personally, I don't think I'm comfortable taking a view on this one way or the other. I agree with the possibilities you offer up but do you think it is fine to think "We'll find out when we get to Heaven" and just leave it at that? As in, we can't be certain about it this side of eternity? It does seem to be the most fair and reasonable position. 

One other thing I just thought of to ask you... 

It seems obvious to me why using the kings and prophets of Israel in the Old Testament for proof as to why most believers can and should be involved in politics is utterly wrong and misleading for multiple and obvious reasons. I would like to push back and argue against that notion as effectively as I can. People seem to think that just because Israel had kings and had to "negotiate" with other nations to some extent means that believers are called to political action today (here is the proof some say). All this despite the fact that we are not Israel (their calling and situation was quite a bit different that what we have and see today) nor are we directly commanded by God to take matters into our own hands (as the crusaders foolishly did). David was king over Israel and subdued many of the nations surrounding his kingdom, so why shouldn't more believers try running for office today? I think many of the answers as to why this thinking doesn't work is obvious, but just in case there is some really "juicy" argument(s) that I may not be thinking of (many of the ones you mention will probably be some of the ones I already have in mind), I wanted to ask you about some of the reasons and arguments you would use to push back against this type of misguided thinking. Your own insight would be helpful in further establishing and confirming my own views. How would you respond to their arguments? 

In His grace and power, 
Response #9:
When it comes to things where the Bible gives indications but not definitive answers, I try to reflect that in my answers. On the one hand, it's probably not a good idea to argue dogmatically about things that are not precisely and specifically addressed; on the other hand, if there are indications, I don't want to "not" just say "We'll find out when we get to Heaven". So on this one, I think there is merit to saying that God is in control of all things, that He certainly knew ahead of time that a conception would occur, and that it is not out of His control to assign/create a spirit in that case. After all, this would be somewhat analogous to those born mentally defective or to those who die young before reaching accountability (they are certainly saved). We can't say definitively, but for me, it fits the pattern, and so I write what I write.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Good evening Professor,

How have you been in the midst of this terrible world? You’re constantly in my thoughts and prayers. 

It’s been a tough year for me. We discovered we were pregnant. We ran tests cause I had been transitioning from one illness to the other since we got married. A cold in November and a toothache that lasted two weeks in December. I just haven’t had a break since we got married. Throughout the first trimester, I had headaches everyday every week (3 months). [details of excessive pain omitted] I didn’t want to eat anything and yet I got so hungry, I could cry for hours. Water couldn’t pass my throat, food was horrendous, I missed school a lot. Failed a no of tests during this time too. I started this email a few weeks ago and couldn’t complete it, I’m completing it today. Still have headaches everyday but they’ve gotten better plus the baby has started kicking so that sort of compensates.

Passing my exam was a complete miracle. Our exams are professional exams and aren’t per semester, this one was written after two years and the next one will be after 18 months and the final one 6 months after that. We write tests throughout the session though and they count towards the final score so failing them can be scary. And I was failing a lot and forgetting a lot and making silly blunders.

Concerning spiritual growth, Our Lord has literally been holding my hands every second of the way. I can’t put into words how beautiful walking with God is. I don’t know how people can live day to day without God. The spirit convicts me every day. The email postings and all the work you’ve done on ichthys never cease to amaze me. Thank you immensely! There’s always so much to tell you but this mom brain blanks out a lot. 

Thank you so much for your love and kindness Sir. Have a blessed month.
Response #10:
Good to hear from you! Thanks so much for your kind email. 

I am distressed to hear that you have had such a difficult road the last several months, and I assure you that I am praying for you now for these matters as well when I remember you daily before the Lord.

I did ask to pass on my congratulations about your passing those exams – well done you! I did pray for you about that and will continue re: your studies.

Re: "Our Lord has literally been holding my hands every second of the way. I can’t put into words how beautiful walking with God is. I don’t know how people can live day to day without God." Amen and amen!!!

I am blessed to have you as a friend in Christ and __ is doubly and triply blessed to have you as a life partner to help him in his journey toward serving the Body of Christ in quest of a wonderful eternal reward – in which you will share no doubt.

Thanks again for your encouraging words, my friend. Becoming a mom isn't easy, but your child will be wonderfully blessed too to have two fantastic Christian parents who love the Lord so much.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11: 
Hello--I have another question for you, concerning a passage in Luke. A Catholic on CARM contends that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and cited the following as proof:

“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).

This sounds dumb to me. Mary just wanted to know how it was possible for her to conceive, since she said she "knew not a man", i.e., was a virgin. I don't think you know Aramaic, but you do Greek and honestly, I don't see anything in the Greek that denotes that Mary's virginity was something she intended to keep permanently--if that were true, then why did she get betrothed to Joseph? 

Thanks for your help, once again. Take care and God bless!
Response #11:
I do know biblical Aramaic. Assuming that this rendition is what the Greek in Luke 1:34 must correspond to is a leap. More importantly, the present participle in Hebrew and Aramaic are functionally similar to the parallel forms in Greek and in English. They DO NOT indicate "a permanent condition" . . . as if this might mean "I will NEVER know a man". Instead, the Greek and even this assumed Aramaic equivalent (we know very little about the Aramaic that was spoken in our Lord's day in Galilee – based on the snippets in the NT, that it's similar to biblical Aramaic and to the Aramaic of the Talmud, is about all we can say), both express Mary's current state: she is not married and thus is not having relations, so how could she become pregnant? It was a fair question to ask (and that is why she receives no such response as Zechariah did for not believing the angel).

This posting is an example of my pet peeve: people who know nothing about language or formal grammar but who use books about these subjects like blunt instruments when they are intended merely to help sharpen the scalpel for those who are already adept at surgery: it's a good way to kill the patient.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Hello--I got more from that Catholic poster who posted that quote I sent to you. He gave me more of the quote in context. I find it a very flimsy argument for Mary's PV. Also, the poster said he has "living" scholars to quote, not a cyber one, like you. I told him you ARE alive, or does he think I have been consulting a medium to put me in contact with a dead scholar?? 

"Andres Fernandez, The Life of Christ (Westminster MD, 1958). [ 83-86’ Roccoptto, Life of Christ, pp. 225-228’; Miguens, Virgin Birth, pp. 77-82. The two principal objections to the traditional interpretation that Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity before the Annunciation – excluding the views of those who reject the historicity of the infancy narratives altogether or in large part – are philological and historical. It is objected that Mary’s question to the angel refers only to her immediate present condition of being unmarried , and that she takes the angel’s statement as indicating an already accomplished conception. (e.g., Reginal Fuller et al, eds., A new Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London, 1969]. P. 996). This objection is most thoroughly and convincingly refuted by Miguens’ learned review of the philological questions pertaining to this point, in his pages cited. His main point is that the Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds not to the Hebrew and the Aramaic perfect, in dictating a condition limited to the past or the present, but to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. He concludes that Mary’s words in Aramaic where ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity (Miguens, op. cit., p. 81). The historical objection, that consecrated virginity was unknown among the Jews of Mary’s time and mentioned in the entire Old Testament only in the case of the prophet Jeremiah, has lost of whatever force it had by the discovery of the remains and records of the largely celibate community at Qumran during this period (Frank M. Cross Jr., The Ancient Library at Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies [London, 1958]. Pp. 71-74, referred to by Fernandez, loc. Cit. In any case, to have rejected the possibility of a vow of virginity by Mary before the Annunciation, because it was common or even unknown at the time, is akin to rejecting the Incarnation itself on the grounds that the Jews were not generally expecting the Messiah to be God. Mary’s early vow of virginity is not de fide, but the historical and logical case for it is very strong – much stronger than most modern scholars and students appear to realize. [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, p. 310] 

What I find especially ludicrous is the bolded part--this guy is only speculating what Mary would have said in Aramaic. But is the bolded Aramaic part a good translation from the Greek as to what Mary told Gabriel? I am curious about that. 

But the idea that Mary consecrated herself to perpetual virginity comes from the Protoevangelium of James, which is second or third century. And it is ludicrous--Mary was betrothed to Joseph before Gabriel came to her. Why would she pledge perpetual virginity then get betrothed to Joseph, if she had NO intention of being a wife to him and raising up children with him?? Catholics have never explained that part to me
Response #12:
As mentioned, and as you affirm, there is no indication that Mary had this conversation in Aramaic. Even if that were the case, for correspondent's logic to hold water it would mean that the Greek – the inspired ACTUAL Bible – completely misunderstood and misread what was really said, that somehow the Holy Spirit "got it wrong" but this person actually "figured it out". If that were true in this case, then we clearly couldn't trust anything in scripture. 

And beyond all argument, since there is NO recorded "Aramaic version" of what Mary said (even if she did say it in Aramaic – she clearly also knew Greek and Hebrew as did our Lord and the disciples). What the bold part here is, is a back-translation from the Greek. In other words, whoever translated INTO "Aramaic" is the one responsible for the wording, NOT Mary. What are the odds that, even if Mary had said this in Aramaic, that a 21st century American could correctly guess from the Greek version what Mary had "actually" said and precisely so? That person would have to be inspired to a greater degree than the Greek he/she is back-translating from . . . and now we know that the Greek isn't actually inspired because it got it all wrong – because in the Greek there is no justification for the meaning that this person is wanting to impose on scripture.

If that were not bad enough, even assuming that this version of Aramaic suggested here (see previous email regarding the impossibility of our knowing with any precision the exact dialectical features of the hypothetical-and-not-recorded-anywhere-Aramaic-spoken-in-Galilee-in-our Lord's day – outside of the few snippets in the gospels), even so this reconstructed Aramaic actually SAYS, ". . . because I do not know / am not knowing / am not having relations with a man". What it does NOT say – and what no participial present tense in Aramaic or Hebrew would ever even be taken to imply – is "I pledge never to ever have relations with any man". 

Another problem I have with this is this statement: "He concludes that Mary’s words in Aramaic where ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity (Miguens, op. cit., p. 81)." It is NOT clear from correspondent's screed who the "he" here is. But what IS clear is that "he" is asking us to believe that this is actually what someone else (Miguens, apparently), concluded. I don't have the time or the interest to check this out, but whenever I have looked up one of these third hand "so and so says that someone else says" situations, the original quote/proof/citation has always turned out to be not what the third person in line (as here) represents it to be. It sounds "scholarly", but no scholarly journal would accept this sort of obfuscation: give us the original quote; don't characterize someone else' characterization of a quote.

Finally, the part that begins, "The historical objection, that consecrated virginity was unknown among the Jews of Mary’s time . . ." is a straw man entirely. There is no need to invoke any such "historical objection" or to refute it since whatever the situation regarding "perpetual virginity" may have been in any manner of cults in that day, none of that has anything to do with what the Greek of this passage actually says. Even if perpetual virginity were all the rage in Galilee in that day and age (no evidence of that!), that would still NOT have anything to do with what Mary actually said. In fact of course, having children was what nearly everyone wanted – and both Mary and Elizabeth are deeply grateful to the Lord for giving them offspring (Lk.1:25; 1:46-55).

People who don't care what the Bible really says have no problem manipulating it to make it sound as if it means what they want it to mean.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Hello--Long time, no write! I hope you are well. 

A Catholic is saying on CARM that Matthew 1:25 doesn't mean that Joseph had marital relations with Mary after Jesus was born. He wrote this:

"Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son."

He didn't say where he got this information from, but I suspect it is from some Catholic apologetic website. But is what he wrote here correct, in the Greek? 

Thanks for your help! As always!
Response #13:
Doing well – hope that is true of you and yours as well!

On Matthew 1:25, leaving out the obvious fact that this argument makes no logical sense in English or in Greek, it is also decidedly untrue. In the very next chapter of Matthew, we find this exact same word (heos) with the exact same construction being used for an event future to the time of expression (i.e., for something that clearly hadn't happened yet, just as in our parallel passage):
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until ( ἕως / heos) I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
Matthew 2:13 NKJV
So in Greek "until" means "until", just as any reader of the English Bible would conclude.

In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hi--Thanks for much for your information. I posted it on CARM. It will be interesting to see how the Catholic responds. I think you wrote something to me to the effect about people who think they are experts in Greek just from reading stuff on it and not actually studying it, don't really know it at all. 

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!
Response #14:
You're most welcome – and, yes, this is very common thing. What I find most amazing is the utter confidence and pedantic nature of such comments when individuals like this have obviously never even had Greek 101.

Wishing you and yours a great T-day too!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Hi Dr L,

Ok, so I was considering the story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. And please don't misunderstand, I have sympathy for the first two in that they didn't get the beginning they wanted. However I do still think Leah was more forced into it based on the way Laban acts the entire time and how everyone seems to only have bad to speak of him. And that that God blessed her and right away when she was sad. So I just feel like it was a bad situation for all except Laban (although to the degree that sinning is bad for you it was for him too).

Anyway my focus is on Rachel. Everything I read about her gives me selfish vibes, but I could be wrong? She envies her sister, and it gives me Lazarus and the rich man feels/vibes. And she steals idols, and I am guessing it is not for pretty decor. I mean when Leah's son's have the madrakes I would guess she only couldn't force them away because, well as a praise to men, some men know how to handle women who are full of themselves (not saying that Rachel is only full of herself). Like some men will laugh and say come and take it. 

Just that overall, there doesn't seem to be anything good about her. She doesn't even seem to be that serious about kids until she SEES her sister have them. So I guess she's pretty is enough? I mean I guess it was, I just. Please tell me if I am wrong. I am also tempted to say, well, girl, just be pretty enough (don't put too much time on caretaking family or other things) and you can get a holy man? I am sorry if I am a little bitter here. I really am. Please be patient and help me understand.

I sincerely hope you are well. Please take care of yourself my friend,

PS: I mean Leah praised God, loved her kids for being her kids (it seems like), wanted to please Jacob, held the family together when Jacob favored one son until she died (it seems like). But Rachel is the valuable one because she is pretty? I don't know I am sorry if I am wrong somewhere.
Response #15:
The patriarchs were not perfect. They were human beings. They did plenty that was wrong. And we are only given a snippet-view of their lives. If any of us had our life story reduced to about a page, no doubt we would rue the relating of our misdeeds, and might feel a bit slighted that the good spiritual things we did were not included . . . because those are internal things, not external actions we took. Here's a link to where I talk about these individuals in some detail: Old Testament Interpretation XIX.

No doubt we are supposed to read these stories and realize the imperfections of these people . . . then consider that we are also imperfect and strive to do better as a result, keeping in mind, as I said, how our own lives might be written up. For we will all stand before Christ's judgment seat (Rom.14:10; 2Cor.5:10).

I would agree that in terms of spirituality they would rank: Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Laban – from what we are given to know from scripture. But, as I said, we don't have all the details. We can see from God's esteeming of him and from his final testimony about his life (Gen.48-49), that Jacob did draw close to the Lord and walk with him during the greater part of that life – but it's not necessarily evident from the details of the narrative which talk about external events, not his inner spiritual life, that is. Same is true for them all. Same is true for us all – but the Lord knows.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Hi Dr L,

I also thought of another point: Leah never took out her sorrows on her sons or daughters. They are all named joyful things. But Rachel as she was dying-well it seems like she was like-'I'm dying, and you have to bear that forever, Ben Oni.' I also admit a bias in that some of her actions remind me of my birth mother who threw away so many children, and everything was always about her feels, to the limited degree I know of her. But I shouldn't project that of course.

And you are right and thank you for pointing that out, what you said. There are a few things that would make me look bad if I only got a page or two and they were on there. And it is also the case that we get the story from childhood to adulthood, so that we see them when really young. So anyway thanks for what you said.

Please take care of yourself, and have a good week!
Response #16:
Another good point about Rachel. It is very interesting how character comes through from only a few incidents and remarks. That's good for us to remember too. Once a word goes flying forth from our mouths, there's no lassoing it back in. But before we get too depressed, it's good to remember that this life is not a one day affair. This life we've been given is a fight to the finish. And every day we have the opportunity to put something into the heavenly thesaurus reserved for us and what we do for the Lord. So every day we have the chance to get those priorities straight and start thinking, saying and doing things that make the angels sing (instead of weep).

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend. You ARE fighting a good fight – keep it up!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Hi Bob,

I think I've been rather successful in my studious avoidance of the mud of the political battlefield, but something that I've been wondering about is when people ask about things not out of any particular political aim, but simply because they want to know something along the lines of "how can I deal with XYZ in a godly way?" Let's call it good-faith questions.

For example: Feminism. The Bible is very clear about the submission of women in marriage and the Church, and all the symbolism behind it (vis-à-vis Christ and the Church, and so on). Well, what of women having leadership roles in the workforce? If we're being hand-wavy, the Bible's taught gender roles go something like:

Men are to protect and provide for and love their wives. They are to lead, and be the ones with the simultaneous blessing and curse of responsibility, as those with final decision authority.
Women are to support and respect their husbands, and submit to them. Their "weakness" (in the sense of 1 Peter 3:7) is much the same as the relative "weakness" of foreigners or the poor -- not moral inferiority in even the slightest sense, but instead a need to be protected and cared for in some capacity. Think "being of gentler/more delicate sensibilities" in a non-patronizing/condescending sort of way (as if being such somehow makes women childish or naïve or whatever). They are simply to be protected and provided for.

As it seems to me, there is an awful lot of nonsense masquerading as Bible teaching that says men have to suppress their emotions and women don't need no education (etc. etc.), but actually, while I can tell you what is obvious nonsense, I've had a harder time pinning down exactly what I should say if pressed. This isn't completely hypothetical either, as I've sort of been intentionally vague in a conversation or two that I can recall simply because while I knew I didn't agree with the elimination of gender roles completely or the obviously-problematic version of them some loud minorities insist are what the Bible teaches, I haven't really done the sort of preparation I would feel necessary to deal with the specifics when people ask about them.

For example, literally every single person above me in my direct chain of command at work is a woman. I was talking to someone at some point (can't exactly remember when) when this point came up, and I realized for the first time that I had not ever really considered whether I thought this was, on the whole, something I think is good and proper, or whether it simply is what it is. It has never really bothered me from a pragmatic point of view (i.e., so long as those above me fulfill their roles in a professional capacity, it does not matter to me what gender they are or even what pronouns they use).

For example, my direct supervisor, one of the people I work most closely with (whom I respect a great deal for her competence and work ethic) is, in my opinion, spending regrettably little time with her young daughter who is 9. I have a rather dim view of the parenting choices many people make in our society, but I'm given to question how much my feelings come from some sort of opposition to women working outside the home as a generalizable moral rule, and how much is simply opposition stemming from what I perceive to be bad practical outcomes on a case by case basis (so here, that would be this daughter in question who gets shipped off to daycare and such rather than getting to spend time with either of her parents).

That is, would I have any problems if my colleague did not have any children? That would eliminate some of what I might view as the harm of the arrangement, but it doesn't change the fact that she is in a position of great leadership and authority on my team, while I know her husband (who works on a different team) is not in the least. I have no insight whatsoever into how their marriage works, but one would think this complicates things, right? That is, if the woman is to submit in marriage and in the Church, but suddenly lead when it comes to finances/career?

But then what about single women who aren't married? What about marriages where the wife is the sole breadwinner, not the husaband? How much are gender roles things we should moralize about in terms of generalizations, and how much are they none of our business in particular when it comes to specific people/marriages?

I have seen arguments along the lines of something like this: the workplace is neither marriage nor the Church, so there is no basis for any restriction on women's participation whatsoever. I have also seen arguments that try to say that it really is true that the province of women (at least those choosing to follow the gender roles ordained by God) is the home, while men ought to be the providers who work outside the home, and anything other than that is in some way less than ideal.

All of this to say, this is one issue where I feel like it might be prudent to be ready for the inevitable questions on the subject (even if one does not partake of the political squabbles raging about these matters), and I confess since I've taken care to avoid some of the politics, I have not up until now thought on it in much detail.

Anything jump out? I'm particularly interested in the question of whether we as Bible teachers need to say something specific in this matter, since so much of our culture points in one specific direction. (To be clear, we'd be speaking up not to enact political change, but because we need to inform our charges of the truth, culture be hanged).

Other examples: There has been much attention focused upon race relations in our country over the last few years, as well as immigration and the idea of illegal immigrants. As to matters of race, obviously racial differences do not divide us in Christ, so I might view this among the easier things to parse in terms of individual application. We treat everyone with love and dignity, the end.

However, large chunks of putatively Christian peoples seem to have been caught up in what one might label the "victim mentality" (or say one must support the self-proclaimed victims if one is a Christian), which to me just seems like an institutionalized (and even glorified) lack of forgiveness and letting go. But then again, what do I know as a privileged white male.

To bring it back to the operative point, if in fact people do need to hear that they really need to stop getting emotionally upset by things in the past (or even injustice in the present), but instead focus on spiritual growth---well if they need to hear that, then wouldn't a complete avoidance of the subject be unwise on our part as Bible teachers?

I'm not even saying we need to go bash the woke movement or social justice warriors, and so forth. But do we perhaps have a duty to try to handle the matter of race with a firm, no-nonsense biblical treatment, so that people actually know what they ought to think about it?

And then when it comes to immigration, this has become a pretty hot topic the last couple years. It also brims with a lot of thorny application issues. For example, if there are laws on the books but our government has chosen not to the enforce the laws (cf. our current president's recent apologizing for the supposedly-offensive "illegal" part of the phrase "illegal immigrant" when he used it in the SOTU address, and also the current dispute playing out between the state of Texas and the federal government when it comes to border enforcement), well, what is actually "illegal immigration" and what is not? Is hiring undocumented immigrants (or even associating with them closely) something that all Christians ought to avoid, or do we show them grace and compassion as fellow human beings (and perhaps even fellow believers)?

These two areas (race relations and illegal immigration) seem to me to be two other areas that are considered to be be fairly political in nature, yet I feel like there is a substantial lack of scripture-informed discussion about these matters. Not that a lot of people on the political right don't try to pretend that their political beliefs are rooted in biblical moral ethics, but I'm talking about the real deal, not political theater. Because people really do have to grapple with these things in the real world.

Things that don't really fit into this category of needing nuance and care to handle?

Some of the other popular political axes to grind are open and shut moral issues for Christians:

LGBTQ issues. Homosexuality is morally wrong. Transitioning genders is morally wrong.
Abortion is morally wrong

These are pretty straightforward since the Bible either speaks on them directly (homosexuality and sexual deviance generally), or there is such a strong inferential argument to be made (abortion) that these things just aren't the least bit controversial among people who even pretend to take the Bible seriously---at least not in the same way as the role of women in our modern age, race relations, and immigration seem to be.

So, to pull it all together, aside from being curious in a personal sense about some of the specifics in these three matters, I'm also just curious generally about how all of these matters interact with a decision on our part to avoid politics as best we can?

Yours in Christ,
Response #17:
My preference is also to "studiously avoid" such things. If a believer who is trying to grow asks me a question related to something like this, I can consider how best to answer that specific question, knowing that the person is asking from some legitimate spiritual concerns. But I don't have any patience or truck with people who are just trying to troll me or this ministry. So from my point of view it would depend on the person asking and the specific question. Since we're talking here mostly about matters of application rather than biblical doctrines (or at least the application of the latter), I don't think I could make blanket pronouncements about such things ahead of time. That said, I'll try to answer what you've asked as best I can.

When it comes to our value in God's eyes, we are all equal (I can't do any better than what I've written at this link: "The Creation of Eve"). When it comes to believers "in the world", there's nothing in the Bible that suggests to me that having a female boss is a problem (I've had them too). When it comes to women's roles in ministering to the Church, the Bible is very clear: we all have gifts and (potentially) ministries, but only qualified pastor-teachers should be providing the spiritual food to the congregation. When it comes to women's position in a marriage, that is also very clear in scripture: husbands are to treat their wives with love and wives their husbands with respect. When it comes to things which are not in scripture regarding marriage, my position is "that is between the two individuals in the marriage". However they want to handle things is up to them, regarding children or anything else, within the bounds of the Law and what the Bible actually does have to say, of course. For other people to be butting into their business is "busybody" territory and possibly also legalism. 

So what do we say "as Bible teachers"? To be honest, in all the things I've written – with the exception of responses to questions – in exegeting and teaching the Bible I've never seen the need to say much of anything along these lines since the Bible doesn't address these sorts of application "problems" except in terms of what I outlined above. It's not that I've avoided anything. Rather, I'd have to go out of my way to address such things beyond what I've done. There are plenty of "ministries" out there which deal with and talk about almost nothing else, so I certainly don't feel the need to do so.

Race and related issues – same thing, and more so. The only major issue in scripture which comes close is "Jews vs. gentiles", and God's mercy is in view wherever this topic is treated in scripture. Gentiles are to have respect for Jews, but are not excluded from the family of God for want of privileged genealogy. We know what the devil is doing with all of these nutty things which are happening here on earth and in this country in particular at present. That's just one of many avenues of attack on the societal peacefulness, law and order, true justice and harmony which stand in the way of Satan's coming plans. For us believers who are trying to grow to go and get upset about such matters doesn't help. Better to keep our noses to the grindstone . . . in full appreciation of the TRUE conflict which is raging beyond our physical vision. One way or another, there is going to be a massive acceleration of this sort of subversion of all that is good and decent through any number of false religious and/or political ideologies. And we don't yet know whether the coup will come from the left or the right – or some combination of the two. What we do know is that a) there are no solutions other than God's solutions; and b) we are only going to be distracting ourselves – or worse – if we get involved in or let ourselves get too upset about it all. When Christ returns, He will straighten everything out. But we know that there is a lot of bad road for us to travel between here and there. We need to keep our eyes up not down and do the best we can to negotiate it without stumbling. For a pastor-teacher, it seems to me that steering his charges AWAY from such involvement as far as that is possible and biblical is the right thing to do. Heaven knows there are enough pressures and bad influences leading INTO this moral and spiritual morass without us contributing – and more and more day by day it seems.

Immigration is a good example of where to stay away.
"Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Exodus 23:9 NKJV
No one is defending lawlessness. No one is siding with criminals or defending all of the terrible things that are happening as a result of the dysfunction. But it's stepping into quicksand to get involved here. Even if there is only one decent person in a hundred sent here by the Lord for spiritual reasons, given the above and similar scriptures, I would want to stay away from being unnecessarily judgmental without reason. And based on the prior portions of this email, I see no reason to weigh in. It's not like this problem is being handed over to me personally to "solve".

On the other and related hot button issues, again, there is no reason for us to become entangled or to make pronouncements the Bible doesn't. If someone asks me about genders, all I need to do is quote Genesis 1:27 – that is what God says about it. Pretty easy to draw your own conclusions and make your own godly applications just from that verse. If someone asks me about abortion, all I need to do is quote Psalm 127:3 – equally clear for anyone who is listening to God and His Word. Why should I be concerned about those who are not? Why should I "go beyond what is written" (1Cor.4:6)? Our ministries are for those who are seeking the truth, not for those who could care less.

So on this issue, my opinion has always been "less is more". It's not wrong to engage up to a point with those positive believers who are genuinely seeking guidance. But rather than seeking to give them incisive insight into these issues per se, it seems better to me to steer the issue back to what they should be doing: growing spiritually and NOT distracting themselves by involving themselves in politics et al. Even if we give them "really good" answers on the latter – and maybe especially so – we have to take care that we may be contributing to their unhealthy interest in things that should be left to the Lord and to individuals directly concerned . . . to the detriment of their spiritual health and growth.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,

Some of what you said reminded me of a past conversation we had, and this quote in particular (I distinctly remembered the illustration of there being no good way to "wrestle the tar-baby", and found the past conversation instantly after searching for that):
I don't think there is a good way to "wrestle the tar-baby". Let me give you an example. We are told to "honor the king". Scripture is very clear about our responsibilities in regard to being law-abiding citizens. But we could argue for hours, days, years, on the topics of "You are a colonist in 1775. Should you join the rebels or support the king or stick your head in the sand or move if you can?" or "You are a resident of Ohio / Virginia. Should you fight on behalf of your state or pick the cause you feel to be godly or at least superior or stick your head in the sand or move if you can?" or "You are a German in 1938. Should you oppose Hitler or reluctantly do your bit when drafted or move if you can?"

Answer: you are not any of those things. If you stay out of politics as much as possible, you will be unlikely now to be pressured to do things that violate your conscience and/or place you in compromised or compromising situations. But if you DO find yourself in something like the above, at that time God will give you an answer if you pray in the Spirit. He is capable of leading you to the right decision for you and those dependent on you and He is able to delivering you, giving you the "right words" in any situation in which you may find yourself (e.g., Matt.10:19-20; Mk.13:11; Lk.21:14-15). Passing judgment upon others in the past is questionable; worrying about what "we would have done" is fruitless speculation; being overly concerned about how to handle future similar situations we may or may not find ourselves in is wasting time and energy: spiritual growth and progress, learning how to follow the Spirit and apply the truth in little things leading up to whatever big things we may called to navigate is what we are supposed to be doing.
Pretty relevant, huh?

1) General approach

Let me see if I can summarize in brief with the example situations I brought up:

1.1) Gender roles

Some true statements:

1.1a) Women are to submit to their husband's authority in marriage (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3).

1.1b) Women are not given the authoritative spiritual gift of Pastor-Teacher, so inevitably this means that only men have the reigns of leadership in the Church (1 Tim. 2:12-13).

So we are always safe in answering in a way like this:

Q: Can women be in leadership positions in their career, such that they exercise authority over men?
A: The Bible teaches (1.1a) and (1.1b). So those are the things that must be followed.

Q: What if a wife and her husband work in the same place, and the wife has authority over the husband in the workforce?
A: The Bible teaches (1.1a) and (1.1b). So those are the things that must be followed.

Q: Can women be college professors, say, such that they are in a position of authority and teach men?
A: The Bible teaches (1.1a) and (1.1b). So those are the things that must be followed.

Q: How about if we ask the same, but we are now talking about seminary professors?
A: The Bible teaches (1.1a) and (1.1b). So those are the things that must be followed.

Q: What if a woman takes on the breadwinner role for a family, and is the one in the family working outside the home?
A: The Bible teaches (1.1a) and (1.1b). So those are the things that must be followed.

1.2) Race related matters

Some true statements:

1.2a) Nothing (race included) divides humans when it comes to us all being one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Race is neither here nor there, spiritually speaking. All believers are united in Christ, all around the world.

1.2b) Forgiveness of others is mandatory for us as Christians (Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 18:21-22)

1.2c) In fact, even more than just forgiving those that harm us, we are commanded to pray for them (Proverbs 25:21; Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:20)

So we are always safe in answering in a way like this:

Q: Isn't it so terrible that black folks have been oppressed in our country's history? First by the horrors of slavery, then Jim Crow, and even now they face terrible treatment at the hands of some racist parties.
A: See (1.2a), (1.2b), and (1.2c)

Q: Oh, but it isn't just black folks. Asian folks get a bunch of senseless hate too, and so too Latino folks of Mexican or South American descent. So too immigrants from the Middle East, who come from places that have a terrorism problem (as if they were all necessarily the same, rather than potentially being people fleeing the terrorism. Cf. the tragic plight of the German Jews facing suspicion and persecution in the non-German countries they fled to during WWII because of their German accents). Look at [long list of abuses that effectively showcase the fallen state of our world]. Isn't it so terrible!
A: See (1.2a), (1.2b), and (1.2c)

Q: But wait, how are all white people the enemy if nobody alive today was even alive for slavery, and most folks alive today weren't even alive for Jim Crow? Aren't things getting taken way too far here?
A: See (1.2a), (1.2b), and (1.2c)

Q: My church is only white people. What do you think? Should I push for us to have more diversity?
A: See (1.2a)

Q: My church is only black people. What do you think? Should I push for us to have more diversity?
A: See (1.2a)

Q: My parents are racist, and insist I can't be friends with people who don't look like me.
A: See (1.2a)

A: Some African American folks I know say that I should be ashamed to be white, and that I should feel guilty for all my privilege. They have a right to take things from me and people like me now, they say, because of past events that left historical people of their skin color (though perhaps not even their direct ancestors) oppressed.
A: See (1.2a), (1.2b), and (1.2c)

1.3) Immigration related matters

Some true statements:

1.3a) We are to treat foreigners with grace and compassion (Exodus 23:9)

1.3b) We are to respect the authority of the government and follow the law generally (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17)

So we are always safe in answering in a way like this:

Q: I live near the southern border, and can tell [recounts various relationships: some closer, some more acquaintances] are undocumented. What should I do?
A: See (1.3a) and (1.3b)

Q: The law is really complicated and contradictory (especially across state lines). If I know of undocumented folks, am I obligated to report them to government officials? Is it against the law to provide for them, and host them in my house? What about hiring them? What if I am asked about them directly by immigration and customs government officials? What if I try to hide them or lie about their status?
A: See (1.3a) and (1.3b)

Q: My spouse feels very strongly that the federal government should get their act together and finally properly enforce our national borders so that the taxes of the honest and hardworking will no longer have to fund handouts for people who break the law. They are very passionate about it.
A: See (1.3a) and (1.3b)

Q: My spouse feels very strongly that the humanitarian crisis at the border is a terrible human rights issue, and that those people in Texas who put up barbed wire and so on are monsters without hearts. How dare they! Think of the children!
A: See (1.3a) and (1.3b)
I mean, I think I get the gist of this approach. Doing this, one never overreaches scripture, to be sure. But I'm quite sure one will frequently face the accusation of not "really" answering the questions.

But we just don't have to care about that as Bible teachers, because we can leave the rest for the Holy Spirit to work out in the hearts of people facing sets of circumstances for themselves? Is that the idea? Since we will never have all the information as they do, and it is their responsibility to apply the truth to their lives themselves anyhow?

Not to be too reductionistic, but the point is sort of that doing anything other than the above is really not "teaching the Bible", since the Bible doesn't go further than any of the general statements, right? You would then be teaching something that is no longer "the Bible", but something that goes past what the Bible actually says.

2) One other specific question on gender roles

I've struggled to put my finger on why the above answers to the questions re: gender roles seem so very evasive to me. Gender roles are really the only one of these three areas for me that still feels a bit shaky.

I obviously agree with the two statements of scripture, but I think it's because just repeating the passages doesn't seem to me to completely answer the fundamental question of "what it all actually means", if that makes sense. For example, here is what I am struggling with:

Statement (1.1a) is limited to the context of marriage, and statement (1.1b) is limited to the context of Church leadership. However, the Bible uses as evidence for the principles articulated in (1.1a) and (1.1b) what I might term "general" statements about women in the sense of universal applicability:

1 Timothy 2:12-13 uses creation order as the reason for the authority of men over women in the Church. The passage, in context, is talking about women in the church assembly, but the priority of creation used as evidence logically applies globally (rather than somehow only being in effect when Church is in session, right?)
1 Corinthians 11:3 simply asserts that the head of woman is man, with no limitation whatsoever (i.e., only in marriage, or only in the Church)
1 Peter 3:7 (we've talked about this one in depth before in past emails) mentions the "weakness" of women. While that particular verse is regarding the proper relationship between husbands and wives in marriage, I know you take the "weakness" mentioned here to be globally applicable (i.e., it applies to even women who are not married too). Direct quote from Peter #35: "Women sin. Men sin. But women, even very smart, talented, resilient and capable women, are more vulnerable to deception than is the case with men. This has to do with the way God made them - as responders"

So the question is something like this: given these global absolutes about women (some of which are directly used in scripture as evidence for the submission of women in marriage and submission of women in the Church), then when we teach that "the head of woman is man" as 1 Corinthians 11:3 says (and 1 Timothy 2:13 affirms, vis-a-vis creation order), well, what does that actually mean? If these principles are globally applicable, then on what scriptural basis do we allow women to have leadership/teaching positions and hold authority over men anywhere in life, in any capacity? For the underlying principles never cease to be in effect, right?

I know you are not much on formal logic, but this seems to me to be one of those places where the logical implication of what we are teaching (i.e., the logical implication of these underlying principles about the nature of women) seems to me to force the issue of us being precise in what we mean exactly. Simply stating the Bible says X, without explaining what that means---does that really answer the question?

Hopefully I'm making sense. I'm going to try to word my question a bit more explicitly:

The order of creation is used to support the submission of women in the Church in 1 Timothy 2:12-13. The relatively greater propensity of women to be deceived comes into play with submission in marriage in 1 Peter 3:6-7. Both of these principles are global in nature (and also cf. Paul's general statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3), but the Bible does seem to only directly teach submission of women within the Church and within marriage. Then since the Bible does not directly teach other things (like submission of women in the workforce generally), then does that mean that these principles don't imply any other submission other than submission in marriage and submission within the Church?

This seems to me like a yes or no question. Either we say the only submission of women the Bible teaches is within the bounds of marriage and the Church, or we say that the principles extend further than that. One or the other. It seems to me (in terms of "spiritual common sense") like the former is correct, but I'm having a hard time 1) justifying that in a way more rigorous than gut feeling, and 2) understanding why we can't then make it very clear when people ask about anything other than submission in marriage and submission in the Church (e.g., submission in the workforce) that women are not bound at all in other circumstances. Or can we say that freely? (The reason I am asking is because it seems to me like you didn't do that in your last response here, at least not in so many words).

Thanks for helping me work through it all, as always.

Your friend in Christ,
Response #18:
On all the "1.1 A:"s, I think that's correct. These are matters of application. For example, I could see how one husband and wife team would decide that it was "not good" for her to be his boss in the workplace, while another had no problems with it. One thing is for certain: it's not my place to tell them they're wrong or right in either case because the Bible doesn't say so. That is so even if it seems to me that for THEM specifically they're getting it wrong. That would be me judging their application not teaching them the Bible. We're supposed to teach the truth and let those who receive it believe it and apply it. We are not supposed to do that for them (or to them); that is legalism. Plenty of "churches" out there are happy to micro-manage their parishioners. They call it "accountability" but it is rank legalism and inimical to actual spiritual growth.

On 1.2, yes, I think this a good stance to adopt. We may have our opinions about this matters beyond what scripture says, but we are here to "feed the sheep", not stir them up politically or validate their opinions or try to steer them in directions we may personally like better. Staying out of situations where we might have to actually answer these sorts of questions directly – since they are not biblical ones – is the best approach.

On 1.3, again, this is essentially the way I try to deal with this issue. I understand the emotionalism of it on both sides, I have my personal opinions, but we are here for Jesus Christ, and our main allegiance is to Him and His Church and His truth, not to Babylon and certainly not to a particular political persuasion within it (whichever one suits our fancy). Don't get me wrong. I do love my country and I did serve it. But the Lord is my Master and my dear Savior, and that trumps absolutely everything.

Re: "But I'm quite sure one will frequently face the accusation of not "really" answering the questions." LOL! I have gotten that a great deal over the years (possibly even once or twice from you?).

Re: "Since we will never have all the information as they do, and it is their responsibility to apply the truth to their lives themselves anyhow?" Amen!

Re: "You would then be teaching something that is no longer "the Bible", but something that goes past what the Bible actually says." Yes, I think that is inevitable for those who determine to try and answer matters of application for other people AND also getting so over one's skis into politics that this begins to color and dominate everything else . . . finally forcing out the teaching of the truth entirely if let go to its natural conclusion (that's the story of a lot of churches et al.).

On "2", there are always places where we'd like more information from scripture. On "weaker", I would ask you to review the link. See especially the part I posted in Peter #37 on "Great Women in the Bible", it seems to me that while scripture doesn't give us direct statements – no doubt for good reason given the situation in the ancient world and also on account of the great ability of people to twist scripture – that scripture does give us sufficient examples of very independent women who are also at the same time godly (see the link). On the other hand, I can't think of any examples where women in scripture are cravenly submissive or get any kudos from the Bible for being so. 
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 NKJV
Being "one" in Christ and equal thereby, it would seem to me that apart from passages which give the husband the authority in marriage (with definite limits and great responsibilities, that of "love" being preeminent), and restrict women from having the leading authority role in the local church (since they, along with most men, are lacking the gift of pastor-teacher), that equality – in Christ for all believers – is the default, so that these other areas are the exceptions. That seems to me to square also with the Bible's depiction of "great female believers" and of women in scripture generally. Clearly, men and women are different. Clearly, every society and culture has its own ways of codifying and coping with this difference. Marriage and the nuclear family are the foundation of every society and civilization – which is why the fifth commandment, the first one dealing with matters not entirely spiritual, is all about that principle and forms the foundation for all other person-to-person relations (link). In the ancient world, existence outside of a family and outside of marriage was by far the exception – and one greatly frowned upon. But for believers, we are saved individually and we are one in Christ collectively. That doesn't mean that we can rightly throw off all respect for all institutions and customs in the society in which we have been placed by the Lord. But it does mean that we all have equal opportunity before Him to grow and advance and produce. There's nothing more important than that.
Likewise [you] husbands are to live together [with your wives] in accordance with [biblical] knowledge (i.e., according to what the Bible has to say by word and example about how to properly treat one's wife), [behaving] as [one ought] towards persons [who, as women, are] weaker. [You husbands] must bestow [all appropriate] honor [on your wives] as fellow heirs of the grace of [eternal] life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (i.e., sin in this regard compromising prayer).
1st Peter 3:7
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,

Re: "But I'm quite sure one will frequently face the accusation of not "really" answering the questions." LOL! I have gotten that a great deal over the years (possibly even once or twice from you?).

Indeed, you've gotten it from me as well a time or two. But I've myself gotten it from others too, which somewhat amuses me, since it makes me feel in good company.

On (2), if I were to strive to condense and summarize what you said, might we put it something like:

The general tenor of scripture is equal spiritual opportunity for all, and general equality in Christ (see Galatians 3:28), including for women. 

So our stance when it comes to questions of gender roles is that if the Bible does not specifically differering gender roles in an area (as it does specifically in marriage and church leadership), then we ought to just go with the default position of equality.

Is that correct?

So, while I think I can understand that position well enough, I'm still struggling with the "why" of it. If we believe the below is what the "weakness" of 1 Peter 3:7 is:

"Women sin. Men sin. But women, even very smart, talented, resilient and capable women, are more vulnerable to deception than is the case with men. This has to do with the way God made them - as responders"

Then don't they need protection in much the same way children do? I get that that sounds super-patronizing, but I just don't see how one gets around it with this interpretation. Maybe it is the wording of it that gets to me. If it is such a global absolute that we can put it this way, and it is the reason men are to lead and protect in marriage, then why does it just magically stop applying when one is no longer talking about marriage?

Is it because this tendency is fundamentally spiritual in nature? So that men are thus leading spiritually in marriage and the Church, with the gender-tied tendency to be more easily deceived/to "being responders" only applying spiritually? (And thus it means nothing in areas that are not fundamentally spiritual in nature?).

Would we then say that the "leadership" of men in marriage is entirely spiritual too? So, for example, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which spouse:

Is the primary decision-maker about non-spiritual things (about housing, money, insurance, decisions with in-laws, and so on)
Is the primary breadwinner

This would then make good sense to me as an interpretation (in terms of explaining why male leadership is a thing in marriage and church organization but not necessarily elsewhere).

I have certainly seen gender stereotypes that would tend to disagree with this (cf. a daughter taking her dad not her mom to the slightly sketchy used car salesman when buying her first car), but I don't know if those have anything to do with biblical truth, is the thing.

What do you think?

Yours in Christ,
Response #19:
I think it's the approach that troubles me. Our job is to teach the Bible. Our job is to encourage others to learn, believe, apply the truth, move forward in passing tests, and eventually come into their own ministries. If pressed by questions such as this from some reader, I'd always try to steer the conversation back to, "well, YOU have an opportunity to strive for eternal rewards; so use it!" I'm not comfortable setting parameters for societal issues. I'm not czar, so it doesn't matter if I could come up with the perfect formulation. Since the Bible doesn't do it – except in Israel under the Law – I'm free not to do it either, IMHO.

Meantime, it's OK to go with "common sense". Even better is "common sense", deeply spiritually informed. But that too defies codification.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,

Righto. Too interested in the mechanics of things again, and trying to piece together the divine logic behind it all. (Sometimes we can't/shouldn't even try, so the trick is keeping the curiosity at bay when it doesn't do any good and leads to misplaced focus. I sometimes struggle with that part).

So in a practical sense we leave it at:

Marriage: Women are to submit to their husbands
Church: Women are to submit to the men who are (qualified and prepared) Pastor-Teachers
Everywhere/everything else: Application, and therefore none of our business to make laws of any kind about, or really even spend the least bit of focus on in a teaching sense

And then we should encourage folks to not overly wonder at why God maybe didn't specify more in this area (but to trust that He had His perfect reasons for not in fact doing such), and also encourage them to go focus back on spiritual growth?

Meaning the best place to leave things is saying basically only the above and basically no more?

Thanks for bearing with me.

In Him,
Response #20:
My pleasure.

Yes, this is the way I see it.

Slight modifications:

"Marriage: Women are to submit to their husbands" AND husbands are to love their wives (Eph.5:25; 5:33) AND "bestow [all appropriate] honor [on your wives] as fellow heirs of the grace of [eternal] life" (1Pet.3:7).

"Church: Women are to submit to the men who are (qualified and prepared) Pastor-Teachers" AS ARE ALSO all men in the congregation who are not the pastor-teacher or co-elders with him.

As to "not overly wonder", as Col. Thieme used to say, "eventually all of your questions will be answered". I really think that the link I provided previously, "The Creation of Eve", answers a lot of such questions (link). Here are some other which also do the same, if a person is wanting truth learned the right way (rather than hobby-horsing one issue or merely trolling the pastor):
Status Quo in Paradise

The Fall

Adam's love poem to Eve

Great Women of the Bible
So I don't counsel saying nothing. I counsel saying what the Bible says, attempting to answer the real question behind the question (even if the recipient feels like the question isn't being answered), with the objective of leading the person towards spiritual growth and away from pointless confrontation. We can't "go beyond what is written" – or at least we shouldn't. But that doesn't mean that we can't use each such occasion as an opportunity to teach the truth.
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 8:31-32 NIV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/