http://ichthys.com/ 
Christology Questions XIII

Question #1:  
Hello Robert,

It has been a long time since I spoke to you last. I hope you are well. I have a question that has come up and looking at scripture the answer seems hard to define. When Christ died and was placed in the tomb it is taught he went to hades and Abrahams blossom and preached to the lost. My question is when he died on the cross and ask his father why have you forsaken me. God was turning his head because he could not look upon the sin that Christ had died for. So once he was placed in the grave for those three days was he still disconnected from his father. I personally do not think so because he told the thief on the cross he would be with him in paradise that day. So if he is in paradise how is he also in Abraham’s bosom? Those 3 days in the grave is very interesting as to where Christ was and what he was doing. I know God does not operate in time like us. For instance we see a parade go by and see one thing at a time. God sees start and finish all at once. So was all of this with Christ in the tomb happening to Christ in one moment ?

Thanks for any help, Blessings
Response #1:  
Great to hear from you, my friend! It HAS been a long time. 

You've actually asked a lot of questions here, and I think the best way to answer them is to give you a quick synopsis of all these matters and then provide links to where they are discussed in depth at Ichthys.

1) Re: "Christ's spirit after He gave it up": Indeed, Christ voluntarily gave up His human spirit after the three hours of darkness had passed, after, that is, He had paid for the sins of the world, having been judged for them all during that time (this is His spiritual death AKA, "the blood of Christ", which is the term used to refer to that greatest of all events but having nothing to do with literal blood; see the link).

2) Re: "preaching to the Spirits": The purpose of this "victorious proclamation" was to let the incarcerated demons know that their last hope had now been erased; being in the Abyss (aka Tartarus), they had no contact with what was going on above, so it took this special announcement by our Lord to give them the (for them) bad news – good news for us: salvation was now completed, and all the efforts of the evil one had failed to stop it. This unique "visit" required a special empowerment of the Spirit because otherwise there was no access between or communication with paradise below the earth and the Abyss. We know from Luke's description of this paradise in Luke chapter 16 (aka "Abraham's bosom"; cf. Lk.24:43), that there was the possibility of communication but not of access between Torments and paradise, but not with the Abyss (see the link)

3) Re: "why have you forsaken me?": This is an almost universally misunderstood quotation. Our Lord quoted Psalm 22:1 after He had been delivered through the ordeal of dying for the sins of the world. In Greek, the verb is in the aorist (simple past tense) and actually says "why DID you forsake Me?" Even in the Hebrew from which it is quoted (and also the Aramaic our Lord used on the cross) the verb is in the perfect, and thus English past tense is the most normal translation. Our Lord was forsaken for our sakes and the quotation is meant to have us answer this question in precisely that way – for believers who have learned a little truth. Why was He forsaken? For us! Christ died for us. He thus had to be forsaken while on the cross the Father judged all of our sins "in His body on the tree" (1Pet.2:24; see the link: "The Spiritual Death of Christ"). Psalm 22 is Messianic throughout, and the last verse is equally important in this regard. It ends with the proclamation that God has effected complete deliverance: "He has done it!" (Ps.22:31), and our Lord also quoted that verse on the cross:
(28) After [all] this (i.e., His physical suffering and His spiritual death for the sins of the world), when Jesus knew that everything had now been accomplished in order for the [prophecy of salvation found in] scripture to be fulfilled, He said, “I am thirsty”. (29) Now a jar of wine-vinegar lay there, so they placed a sponge full of the wine-vinegar on a hyssop [stalk] and brought it to His mouth. (30) So when He had taken the wine-vinegar, Jesus said, “It (i.e., salvation) has [now] been accomplished!” (113), and having thrown back His head, He gave up His spirit.
John 19:28-30
These matters are all discussed in detail at the link in BB 4A: Our Lord's Final Statements of Completion.

4) Re: "still disconnected" and "one moment": The judging of Christ for the sins of the world is at once the most important and also the most ineffable thing that has ever happened in history. It is the foundation of the plan of God and thus of all creation. After "it had been accomplished", there was no longer any "disconnection". The three days in the grave were necessary to fulfill all prophecy and also to demonstrate the power of God to resurrect us – which would not have been on display if Christ had been miraculously resurrected while still on the cross. 

There are a lot of other ins and outs of all the above (most explained at the links; see also for our Lord's descent and proclamation the link in Peter #35, "By Means of the Same Spirit"), so do please feel free to write me back.

Hope you and yours are doing well down under!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:  
Sorry for the rants in the last 2 emails...you don't have to read them, just more of the same melodramatic terror I typically spew. Long story short, I'm still scared about having to give account for EVERYTHING in my saved life, and if I'm interpreting this correctly, this will include even sins we've confessed and repented of. I've done some pretty nasty things in my life as a believer which I won't get into to much detail on here, [omitted].

Also as you probably know by now, I can be...mentally unstable at times, to say the least. How many times have I had a near complete mental breakdown over some overreaction to some teaching on your site, making it out to be far worse than it actually is, or even over my falsely believed inability to make any progress spiritually? I had one just this night in fact, which quickly followed the last 2 emails. I read an old one of yours and it reminded me of an important truth:

We need to take this life 1 day at a time, spiritual growth one step at a time. If we try to rush it or look too far ahead we'll end up losing sight of who we should truly be focused on. God can help us fix any of our internal problems, which is something I take hope in almost in as high regard as the hope of our eternal reward, after all spiritual maturity is a big part of attaining those rewards right?
Response #2:  
Reaching spiritual maturity is the basis for receiving the first crown of reward, the crown of righteousness (see the link):
(7) I have fought the good fight. I have completed my course. I have kept the faith. (8) In the future there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that [great] day [of judgment] – and not only to me, but to all who have loved His appearance (i.e., who have exercised consistent love for Jesus Christ in anticipation of His return).
2nd Timothy 4:7-8
In terms of sins, these do not form part of our judgment per se since Christ has already been judged for them and they have been entirely forgiven. Even unbelievers at the Great White Throne last judgment are judged "according to their works", not according to their sins. Atonement is unlimited. The problem for unbelievers is that they do not have eternal life through faith in Christ – that redemption requires accepting Him.

We should ALL be apprehensive about facing our Lord at His judgment seat (2Cor.5:11), but consider: it's not as if Jesus Christ doesn't already know what we've done. Even when we are in the process of sinning, it's not like He is not right here observing us. In fact of course He knew it all in eternity past. If we are apprehensive about Him mentioning something to us then, what about now? Not a bad perspective to keep in mind for us all. If He were visible to us at all times, we'd all "do better" – so best to keep Him visible in our hearts (Heb.11:27).

But as to "how bad" you think you are, consider: Paul pillaged, persecuted, and contributed to the judicial murder of a great many believers. Nothing you have done even rises close to that level. But was Paul apoplectic about having to answer for this? No. He admits it (on more than one occasion) but he doesn't let it stop him from being joyful in the Lord AND conducting one of the greatest ministries ever. He tells us to forget the past and move forward (Phil.3:13). If we are doing that, we can be confident that whatever embarrassment we may face at the Bema, that will be the last time for it in all eternity AND everyone else has the exact same "problem". The REAL issue is whether or not our evaluation will result in reward that glorifies Christ. So THAT is what we should be concerned about, not looking backward (which only stops our progress) but diligently moving forward to the glory of God and our own great reward on that Day.

The farther you progress, the more consistent you get, the better all these problems, worries and concerns will get as well. So keep running a good race, and all things will fall into place.
And we know that, for those who love God, He works everything together for good – [that is to say,] for those who have been called according to His plan.
Romans 8:28
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3: 
I just finished reading through Christology tonight and read through link section 4 "The Blood of Christ" (currently going through the basics and then gonna jump into Hebrews). I agree with what you've written (a lot of people seem to find the truth of this matter heretical which is ridiculous). With that being said, would this make the famous children's song "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the Blood of Jesus" unbiblical? You get what I'm asking? You might think it's a silly question but I'm legitimately curious. Maybe they're basing the song on 1 John 1:7-9? 
Response #3:  
Everyone loves music, and it certainly has its place in worship. On this hymn, however, this doctrinal confusion is one of the reasons I'm not big on many hymns. Who knows if the person who wrote the lyrics had any idea of the truth? And who knows how those who get emotional when hearing it are receiving it? If a person knows and believes a good deal of truth, that is, is a mature believer, then hearing a questionable or potentially misleading lyric will not throw him/her off – because it will be set against a context of what the Bible actually says and means. But for the immature, such lyrics can have really negative effects. Whenever I use the phrase "the blood of Christ", I almost always explain somewhere in context what that means: NOT literal blood but our Lord's spiritual death wherein He paid the penalty for all of our sins. 

Scripture does say we are "washed" (1Cor.6:11) and that our robes have been washed and "made white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev.7:14), but these are both metaphors, clearly (washing with literal blood wouldn't produce cleansing and especially not whitening). Cults sometimes take the first verse as water-baptism and the second one is sometimes seen as literal along the lines of the R.C. falsehood on this important doctrine, but even someone with rudimentary knowledge of the truth would have a hard time accepted those false teachings. 

What we can say for certain is that "the blood of Jesus washing away our sins" is 1) not directly scriptural in terms of phraseology; 2) potentially very misleading absent an explanation of the truth of the doctrine of the spiritual death of Christ; and 3) for that reason a song I'd never approve of for children. 

Anyone can write a hymn or "Christian song"; it doesn't take a mature believer to do so. Clearly that is the case, since almost all such songs are at least somewhat "off" doctrinally in one way or another. And the problem is that since music is so powerfully and emotionally influential, these songs tend to worm their way into to hearts and minds in a way that mere mis-statements cannot. Because it's music, and especially if it's good and catchy, it possesses a false authority which can do great damage to the extent that it is in any way diverging from the truth.

So, as always, it's knowledge of and belief in the truth that keeps us safe.

I particularly like Christmas carols, even the doctrinally incorrect ones. No, there was no drummer boy; no, the ox didn't keep time; no, there wasn't even a stable (a manger is a feed trough which they used for a cradle which the inn didn't have). But it's still a nice song (the first twenty times you hear it on the Muzak). And no, your grandmother did NOT get run over by a reindeer . . . although I almost got run over by a Lexus sporting an add-on red nose and antlers in a parking lot the other day (Santa was a little to eager to claim the parking spot). But forgiveness is always in season (no tread marks, no foul).

Merry Christmas!

In the cross of Jesus Christ through whose suffering and dying for our sins we are saved,

Bob L.
Question #4:  
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I have a quick question for you. For a long time now I have believed, and from the scripture I have studied, that the crucifixion of our Blessed LORD and Savior took place on the Mount of Olives.

Just wanted your opinion.

1. Jesus went often to the Mount of Olives to pray.
2 It will be the mountain where He will come at His Second Coming.
3. Matthew 27:51-54 the centurion and the guards saw Him die and at the same time, saw the veil of the Temple split.
4. Hebrews 13:10-13. The place that you see on a trip to Israel is within the city gates, not outside, from what I remember.

There are a number of proof texts that I believe and understand bear witness with my thinking, if I am correct; I could be wrong. The mountain that Abraham was to sacrifice his one and only son, on Moriah which I read, is in Jerusalem. Perhaps the Mount of Olives is part of the Moriah range?

Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks as always.

Blessings to you always,

Your friend,
Response #4:  
The Mt. of Olives is on the east side of Jerusalem and was outside of the city gates in antiquity. Also, I think from Luke 23:47 and Matthew 27:54 in particular where it is the earthquake following the expulsion of His spirit by our Lord that draws the centurion's attention that we may glean this that it was the events on Calvary which the centurion "saw". The veil of the temple wouldn't have been visible in any case even to someone standing in front of the structure which Herod had beautified with an elaborate outer structure.

The gospels say that the place of crucifixion was Golgotha (Matt.27:33; Mk.15:22; Lk.23:33; Jn.19:17). They don't mention the Mt. of Olives in this context. 

John 19:20 also says that "the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city"; and Hebrews 13:12 tells us that it was outside the city walls. 

It is certainly true that the Mount of Olives is the place of our Lord's second advent return and that is no small point.

You mention "proof texts". I'm happy to discuss these with you. In short, you may very well be correct, but it does seem strange that all four of the gospels give the place a name but don't say anything about the Mount of Olives per se. Many take "place of the skull" as an indication of the shape of the hill or mound, but such a "bump" could be anywhere in that hilly area.

I too have thought to connect Mount Moriah with the crucifixion. That is not only the place where Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac but also the place where the Lord appeared to David and where Solomon's temple was built (2Chron.3:1). Anywhere along the ridge on which Jerusalem was built could be considered "Mount Moriah", extending from the north to the south along the entire course of the old city so that the place of crucifixion could be beyond the walls to the north and still be on this ridge. Tradition places Golgotha to the west of the city; Eusebius placed it north of the city. If it were on the Mount of Olives, which is to the east, that would seem to eliminate the possibility of any connection between Mount Moriah and Golgotha.  So I don't think that was the place of our Lord's death for us . . . but it is where He will return (see the link).
(2) "For I shall gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against her. The city will be captured, its houses will be sacked, and its women will be ravished. (3) Half of the city will be taken away captive, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the Lord will go forth, and He will fight against those nations as when He fights on a day of battle. (4) For His feet will stand on that day on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east."
Zechariah 14:2-4a
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:  
Hello again Bob,

I hope that cold has left you now. I was wondering if you have any writings about Isaiah 53 about Jesus being the true Messiah for the Jews. I see a lot of articles now about Israel being the suffering servant, and I like to be for armed if anyone puts this to me.

Re my question about Isaiah 53...I do know about the 2nd Temple prediction and how Jesus coming fulfilled the Daniel prediction but thought you may know a few other instances particularly where the so called experts say Israel is the suffering servant.

Many thanks once again.

In Jesus holy name
Response #5:  
It's always a pleasure to hear from you, my friend.

In terms of Isaiah 53, since this is a Bible teaching ministry, not an apologetics one, I teach positively, explaining things which are in the Bible (rather than searching out and attempting to debunk things which are not). Here's a link to where the entire passage is translated anew with some expansions (link). I think that anyone reading this passage in virtually any version would come to the same conclusion that the Ethiopian official did, namely, that it is about "some person"; the only thing he didn't understand was the "who?":
Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. The place in the Scripture which he read was this:
“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
In His humiliation His justice was taken away,
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth.” [Is.53:7-8] 
So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
Acts 8:26-35 NKJV
Since the early days of the Church Age, there have been many out there who want to allegorize everything . . . to the point where nothing means anything in scripture. Scripture, however, means what it means and says what it says, and what it says in this passage (Is.53) is beyond clear . . . and we have the verses quoted above to show that the Holy Spirit deliberately used this very passage to give Philip an opportunity "to preach Jesus" – not allegorical Israel. Also other passages clearly connect Isaiah chapter 53 to Jesus Himself:
When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses." [Isaiah 53:4]
Matthew 8:16-17 NKJV

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
“Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth” [Isaiah 53:9]
1st Peter 2:21-22 NKJV

“For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ [Isaiah 53:12] For the things concerning Me have an end.”
Luke 22:37 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6: 
Hello Bob.

I was wondering about this passage in Luke, it seems Jesus was referring to the man that He was God, and yet the man declared to all the people what Jesus had done to him. So what do you think. Maybe Jesus healed him in the name of God? 

I am interested in this because some people say that Jesus never claimed to be God.

38 The man from whom the demons had gone begged that he might be with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. 

Hope you and yours are doing well.
Response #6:  
Yes, I think you have this right.

Re: "some people say that Jesus never claimed to be God". IMHO, those people should read the Bible.
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ’ ? “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”
Matthew 22:41-45 NKJV
Answer: Jesus is God. Of course, this is a parable-style "riddle" but one with an inescapable answer because only by existing before His son through being God could this be the case.
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 8:58 NKJV
The punctuation and capitalization is correct since the Greek reflects the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, so this too is pretty clear.

As to Luke 8:38, you make a good point. Only God could do what Jesus did. But there is "plausible deniability", again, parable-style, in the way Jesus puts this (for good reason; see the link).
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."
Matthew 13:10-11 NIV
Doing pretty well (getting over a bit of a cold but otherwise OK). Hope you are doing well too out there in Tassy land, my friend! Keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:  
Hello Prof. Bob! 

How are you and yours doing? We've just returned from a trip. Thank you for the prior correspondence; I'm hoping to clarify some confusion I had for reasons which will be obvious. 

I stumbled on some of writing you had about "kenosis". My limited prior knowledge of the term was pertaining to a mega church pastor who had supposedly heretically taught that Jesus ceased to be God during His time on earth. I think I was confused by some of what I read on Ichthys. I believe Jesus was wholly God and wholly man; I can't articulate it, but I know how vital that is to the Gospel and Truth. 

I guess to clarify, you weren't conveying that Jesus' deity was compromised during His ministry right? I know it's a paradox because He was fully human, so endured the challenges we do….but He was also God. 

I just wanted to clarify since that point seems so imperative in following any Bible teaching further. 

Thank you so much!
Response #7:  
Re: "I think I was confused by some of what I read on Ichthys. I believe Jesus was wholly God and wholly man". On the first part, well, you certainly wouldn't be the first! But I don't know from this exactly what you read that confused you (link? / reference?).  I certainly agree with this second statement of yours. As I have said countless times, Jesus is and has always been God and as God could never not be God; at the incarnation, He took on genuine humanity in addition to His deity – which makes Him THE unique Person of the universe, the God-man. That was the only way we could be saved since only a human being could bear our sins and only a perfect one at that – and thus the incarnation was a tremendous sacrifice in and of itself, not to mention our Lord's beyond-difficult life, His ministry through such opposition, the gauntlet of the cross . . . and His spiritual death for the sins of the world.

Here is the main link on this at Ichthys: in BB 4A: "Kenosis and the Hypostatic Union".

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:   
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I just happened to open my Bible this morning to read, and saw this verse in the verses above.

Verse 24 is what I want to ask you about.

It says: "He broke it and said "This is my body, which is for you; do in remembrance of Me".

I am thinking that there are several reasons why Jesus did this:

1. He gave His physical as He says is for us, that is, the crucifixion and death for sinners.
2. Would He also be indicating to the disciples, that by the breaking of the bread that He was saying that His crucifixion and death concluded the requirements depicted in the Old Testament?

The two disciples urged Jesus to stay with them which Jesus did.

Luke 24:30-31.
"When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, "He began giving it to them." Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their site."

It was the breaking of the bread that they suddenly knew who He was, "The Lord has really risen and has appeared to us."

3. Could not this breaking of the bread that they suddenly knew who He was, show these disciples that He really did fulfill the requirements of all the Old Testament regarding the Messiah and His life, like Isaiah 53, and many other scriptures.

Blessing to you always,

Your friend,
Response #8:  
This is an excellent insight, my friend! The bread of presence in the tabernacle on the golden table (KJV "shewbread") represented the Messiah. Since the wine of communion represents our Lord's blood (that is to say, His spiritual death), the breaking of the bread would be parallel to that, His body sacrificed for us, bearing the sins of the world. Then as a result our eating and drinking represents our faith in His person (human and divine) and His work in dying for us spiritually.

So, yes, we actually have fellowship with Jesus now, represented by the ritual of communion, whereas under the now replaced Law it was only anticipated. Thanks to our High Priest we have access to the Father directly through Jesus' sacrifice for us.  See the link: "Communion" in BB 6B

In Him,

Bob L.
Question #9: 
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

My wife and I were having Bible Study this morning and were discussing several scriptures..
She uses the German translation by Luther, and I use the NASB. Here are the phrases that are in question. She tells me that wherever the Bible uses the following phrase like "Dem Herr Deinem Gott: it is referring to Jesus and God in the same sentence, for wherever it uses the phrase Der Herr, our Dem Herr, it is referring to Jesus. Now our English Bible uses the word LORD followed by our God.

Here is another example: James 4:15 says: "Dagegen solltet ihr sagen: Wenn der Herr will, werden wir leben und dies oder das tun"

She is not really sure how that goes, for in Germany they always refer to Jesus Der Herr/.
Another phrase in the German Bible is "Dem Herr Dein Gott" translated from the english "The LORD your God".

Can you give any input to this, because the phrase in German "Der Herr," is always referring to Jesus, and that is used in the Bible numerous time.

I love languages and I should have studied to be a Linguist. Oh well, too late now. I am always curious about languages, and how they came about, so I would like to find out the reason.

Your Friend,
Response #9:  
On being a linguist, linguistics as a discipline is not as much real-language based as you might imagine. Rather it is theoretical in the main nowadays, and while linguists do interact with other languages they concentrate more on theories of how language works than they do on becoming expert in specific languages.

On your question, I don't think I can answer this based on what you've given me because every Bible follows its own convention. There are two NASBs. The older one uses LORD God when the first element is YHVH. So where it translates that phrase in the New Testament, since in Greek it's not YHVH 'Elohiym but kyrious ho theos, they have Lord God instead of LORD God. So in the older NASB, capitalized LORD is used for the tetragrammaton only – I believe (but of course I have not checked every single instance). Not sure what convention Luther used. I'd be happy to check but I'd need some verse citations.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:  
Thanks for your reply. I was not aware of what a linguist does, so based on what you said, I would not want to be one. 

Anyway, I have given some verse references below:

Jesaja 37:20
"Nun aber, HERR, unser Gott, errette uns aus seiner Hand, damit alle Königreiche auf Erden erfahren, dass du, HERR, allein Gott bist."

Jesaja 42:8.
"Ich, der HERR, das is mein Name, ich will meine Ehre, keinem andern geben noch meinen Ruhm den Götzen."

I noticed in the above verse in German that it does not use "I AM", which is very important based on Exodus 3:14a: in German: "Gott sprach zu Mose: Ich werde sein, der ich sein werde."

Jesaja 44:6.
"So spricht der Herr, der König Israels, und sein Erlöser, der HERR Zebaoth; Ich bin der Erste, und ich bin der Letzte und außer mir ist kein Gott".

I hope this is sufficient. Thanks so much,

Your friend,
Response #10:  
My pleasure as always, my friend.

In every case in the verses you give as examples, HERR = YHVH. I cannot explain why the first occurrence in Isaiah 44:6 is "Herr" and not all-caps HERR, since both translate YHVH.

As to "I AM", there is no verb present in the Hebrew of Isaiah 42:8 as there is at Exodus 3:14 (which is why "am" is italicized in the KJV et al.).

Hope this clears it all up but do feel free to write back.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:  
Hello again Dr. Luginbill,

Thank you so much for the explanation, it does help a lot.

Yes, and I also could not figure out why the HERR is capitalized and the other Herr, neither did my wife know why. She thinks it was just the translator, Martin Luther.

You are always a great help to me and I really appreciate it. I cannot help but saying, I have learned so much from you, and I thank the LORD for using you and giving you the wisdom to do what you do, I cannot imagine how you were able to produce all the teachings and answer the Email's you receive. It has to be a tremendous amount of work on your part.

I wish that more Christians could make contact with you. 

May you be blessed above measure for all that God does through you.

Your friend,
Response #11:  
Thank you!

Your encouraging words mean a lot to me.

Thankful for you two as well!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:  
Since our Lord lived as a Human under self-imposed kenosis then how could He sustain the universe with His deity at the same time? 
Response #12:  
Deity is deity and can't ever stop being deity. All that the Lord did and does in carrying out the Father's plan never stopped when He became a human being as well. The kenosis applied to His humanity only, not to His deity which has always been exactly the same.
“I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."
Malachi 3:6 NIV
Question #13: 
Hello Prof. Bob!

I wanted to let you know we're still kicking, pursuing the Lord, and to thank you for the clarification regarding kenosis. As far as a link goes, it's most likely I just misunderstood something; I appreciate your not taking offense especially since your clarification provided me confidence to dive back into some reading. 

I wanted to share a praise; although I'm still relearning a lot and have some ways to go, God has been so gracious. I'm not in the same type of pit as before. Moreover, I'm maybe starting to understand the "offense" part a bit more. 

I think I used to assign so much value to so many things that I doubt really matter one way or another; Lord willing, I will continue to realize that which does and doesn't matter to the Lord, my growth, and the building up of the Body. 

Have a blessed weekend! 
Response #13:  
No worries at all, my friend – and thank you so much for this very encouraging email!

I love your application here! My old mentor used to say, "Don't major in your minor!" In other words, put your emphasis where it's most important to do so.

I'm really thrilled to hear of your progress, my friend.

Do feel free to write any time.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:  
Hi again Bob!

In two weeks time I will have finished both the Coming Tribulation as a first study through! Already finished Satanic Rebellion. Will probably try to read through them again later in the year and every year as we are so close! I will continue to read the Peter series but as I am used to tackling two sections side by side, I was thinking of starting Bible Basics: Theology series now.

I am also aiming for half an hour on ministry a day so will have to work hard to get it all done. Also this is on top of working on my business, the house and family and social commitments (and on top of my health/self care too!) It will be a busy year but I am very inspired and determined to keep plugging away at all of it.

I also have a really unusual question for you but it has been nagging at me for some reason. During His first advent, did Jesus need to have faith? I have found the Kenosis doctrine difficult to understand at times but it makes sense as God would not be able to die otherwise.

When Jesus (through Kenosis) was being tested in the desert (for example), would He have needed faith in the Father to get Him through it? He could've turned the stones to bread but He didn't as 'man cannot live by bread alone'. At the well He explained 'I have meat to eat you do not know of.' He then explains that His meat is to do the will of the Father. To do this will would require faith wouldn't it?

I was thinking of how Jesus is our Saviour and example in all things so then I was thinking of our call to have faith. So then I thought 'did Jesus need to have faith?' But isn't faith the hope for something unseen? But Jesus knew the Father eternally and knew He is God too... So then I think that faith cannot be part of it. Was the Kenosis linked to faith in some way then? Like a trust in the Father to get through the temptation?

Sorry if I am really off in the weeds here. I also sometimes worry that asking such questions is a type of blasphemy on my part. You know that I don't want to dishonour our Lord in my thinking, I just find some of these details a bit difficult to understand. Paul said it is through a glass darkly though.

Looking forward until I am face to face with Him!

In Jesus,
Response #14:  
I'm glad to hear of your progress – and also of getting into "Basics". It's not the best name, given how it ended up. In truth, it's more detailed than most systematic theologies. So keep at it!

On your question, it's important to remember what "faith is": the ability to trust, believe, to make a decision to pronounce in one's heart something as true. In other words, faith is the essential functioning of the free will image of God we've all been given. So of course our Lord had this ability in His humanity under kenosis during the first advent. 

The main difference between our Lord and us in this respect is that He always responded to the Spirit telling Him something was true and applied that perfectly. We, on the other hand, even mature believers, are up and down on this on our best days, whereas unbelievers prefer to pronounce lies as truth, whichever meet their fancy.

Keeping you in my prayers daily, my friend. Thanks so much for yours!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:  
Hi Bob,

Today, I've been working on a piece talking about John 17:9. A brief excerpt:

The point is that God judged His one and only Son in our place to pay for our sins while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8)! He offers the same equal chance to all, in that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world upon the cross---of all who ever have and ever will live. God has already done more than any one of us deserves, and He has done it for everyone!

If God has done this much already, are we to assume that Jesus never prayed for unbelievers or the world generally? Come now. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (NIV11). Of course Jesus prayed for the world. But this specific prayer here was not targeted in such a way, and that is indisputable. But what does that mean then?

Basically, I wanted to address exactly what "I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours" means, and I started off by talking about how it does not mean that God does not desire the salvation of all, given what He has already done for all.

In setting out to explain what it does mean, however, I've been chewing on my metaphorical pencil, trying to figure out exactly what to say.

Romans 8:28 comes into play too: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him."

My impulse is to say that God works all things together for the maximum good of all, not just believers. For example, even though He doesn't have to, God gives unbelievers many opportunities to turn around and repent, if they but would. Does not God work out all things for the good of unbelievers too, in a manner of speaking? (I could have sworn I've asked you this before about Romans 8:28 and unbelievers, but I couldn't find it).

So I'm a bit stuck here. On the one hand, if I write a statement like "God specially superintends the lives of believers," that sounds right, but then does that mean that He doesn't give the utmost care to all of His creatures, including unbelievers? He cares for all of us -- Christ died for all of us.

And it's not like God's attention is zero sum like a human parents' is either. He can be perfectly attentive to the greatest good of everyone who ever has and ever will live, and it isn't even hard for Him. Right?

I don't know if I'm getting hung up on some technicality that oughtn't bother me, but it is just making my brows crease a bit, and I haven't been able to reason my way out of it yet. Can Romans 8:28 be explained in terms of context or something? Like, something that is specifically limiting what "good" is in mind?

Anything jump out?

In Him,
Response #15:  
If you're asking whether "working all things out for good" is contradictory to scripture, we'd better quote the entire scripture:
And we know that God works everything together for good . . . for those who love God being called according to His plan.
Romans 8:28
An important qualification. Here's a better scripture for your purposes:
For God loved the world so much that He gave [up] His only Son, [with the purpose] that everyone who believes in Him should not be lost [forever], but have eternal life [instead].
John 3:16
God loves all; and that is the motivation behind the great Gift of Jesus Christ whose sacrifice suffices for all. But the eternal life, the "good" that He is working out, only falls to the lot of the one "who believes in Him".

So this is about free will / image of God. Everyone is given the opportunity – at the greatest possible cost beyond our imagination; but not everyone avails him/herself of that blessing. Or as Paul and Barnabas said,
"Since you reject [the gospel of Christ] and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles."
Acts 13:46b NIV
Apologies if I've missed the gist.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16: 
Hi Bob,

I think maybe what I was asking was not clear. Let me try again. I was probably confusing in that I brought up what I was working on for context, but it wasn't that related to my question so... yeah. Clear as mud. 

1) On the meaning of Romans 8:28ff. Let me try to phrase it this way. We know God's Plan is completely perfect -- down to the finest detail. And as I said in my first email and you reiterated in your response, God has already done so much even for unbelievers who spit in His face. So given that all this is true, the underlying question is something like "If God's Plan is completely perfect, then why is the "we know that God works everything together for good" here limited only to "those who love God"? Isn't it true for everyone/everything, as a general principle that is globally true?"

I feel like it comes down to what "good" is in view. God may work all things out for "general good" in the case of unbelievers (e.g., giving them a perfectly fair chance to turn to Him, and so on) -- basically, "God has done absolutely as much for them as their poorly applied free will would allow Him to do" -- but there's only so much He can give them, only so much "good" He can render, if they refuse to turn to Him with their free will?

This would then mean that the "good" mentioned in Romans 8:28 is... narrower? If God does as much as He can for all people generally (as much as they'll let Him), then is what is in view here instead what is mentioned in the next verse, the foreknowing/predestining/calling/justifying/glorifying?

2) On the Greek of Romans 8:28-29. In v. 28 we have οἴδαμεν followed by a ὅτι clause. Here's what Thayer's lexicon says on συνεργει: "a breviloquence equivalent to συνεργειν, ποριζω τι τινι, so that according to the reading παντα συνεργει ὁ Θεος the meaning is, 'for them that love God, God coworking provides all things for good or so that it is well with them' (Fritzsche) (R. V. marginal reading God worketh all things with them for good)"

I'm not sure I buy an implied ποριζω here. Seems completely unnecessary to me. One of my concise technical Greek commentaries says:

"συν-εργέω co-operate in realizing sth, help to bring about. τοις ἀγαπωσιν … εἰς ἀγαθόν everything co-operates with those who love God to achieve what is good or he (God) works in every way (πάντα) with those … var. after συνεργει add ὁ θεός God works with those who love God.… Without the var. the traditional (Vulgate) transln remains possible: All things work together for good to those who love God."

2.1) So... what's the subject of συνεργει ? Is it an implied ὁ θεός, or is it παντα?

It made me chuckle when one of the translations for Romans 8:28 linked in the translation index on Ichthys took it one way, and another the other: πάντα as subject on Ichthys; Implied ὁ θεός as subject on Ichthys.

Obviously not a big matter of theology (i.e., if παντα is the subject, well it is God that is causing all things work together for good, so...), but now I'm just curious about the grammar.

2.2) As to v. 29, is the ὅτι beginning this verse completely independent from the οἴδαμεν of v. 28, or to be taken with it? So is it "We know.... that [verse 29]", or does it have more the force of for/since (almost like a γ ρ)?

Would this change the meaning at all? Not really, right?

3) On Jesus' prayer for believers in John 17:9

Is it fair to assume that Jesus prayed for unbelievers and the world generally as well? Just not here in this passage? Could you explain the point/significance of Jesus saying, "this prayer is not for the world, but only for believers"? Why did He emphasize that?

I hope I did a better job being clear this time.

In Him,
Response #16:  
Sorry if I misunderstood.

Right: the "good" in this passage is only "for those who are called according to His purpose" – and that would mean that Romans 8:28 is only talking about believers.

If you are asking about the plan of God generally, it is designed to for the maximum number to be saved. Jesus died for all. Why wouldn't God want all to be saved (which scripture affirms He does: e.g., 1Tim.2:4)? And unless Jesus had died for all, none could be saved in God's justice. Being willing to be saved, however, it what this life is all about, who is and who isn't (and for those who are, just how much do we really love the Lord?). He is "Good" as a divine attribute, part of His perfection, and could never be anything but absolutely good. If human beings don't see it, that is our problem (see the link).

As to the translation, both ways are perfectly defensible; if the verse is translated "all things" as the subject, this would then be a quasi-passive expression wherein the understood Agent is God (since things don't work for good on their own without a plan and direction). I have indeed translated it both ways; I'm not trying to keep up with the BSV (Bob standard version); I make improvements when I translate verses anew, but I don't go back and correct prior renditions . . . unless it turns out that the translation was somehow mistaken or misleading (which is different from being an acceptable variant).

On the commentaries, this exemplifies their essential uselessness for anyone who has learned Greek (or Hebrew) well and also knows enough about the true underlying theology of scripture to easily steer clear of such scholarly-sounding confusion.

No, I don't see much difference however one takes the hoti in v.29. It's a generic conjunction and would be received that way; it would be a mistake to put too much semantic weight on taking it one way or the other IMHO. I translate it causally ("for").

On John 17:9, as you note, this is a prayer for believers which specifically is not praying for unbelievers.

I'm not willing to say that our Lord prayed for something scripture doesn't say He prayed for (never thought about this one before – do you have any verses that indicate He did?). There is one good reason I can think of why He may not have done so. 1st John 5:14 says that if we ask anything "according to His will" He hears us, and our Lord told us at Matthew 21:21 that if we have even a small amount of faith we will be able to move mountains, concluding in the following verse, "And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” If our Lord prayed for an unbeliever to be saved and that person was not saved then our Lord's prayer would not have been answered – and I have a hard time accepting that any of His prayers were ever not answered. Knowing in the Spirit "who it was who would betray Him", it seems safe to assume that He would be likewise informed about who would and who would not believe in Him. Praying for something that is not in the plan to happen is either pointless or resistant to the plan, it seems to me . . . unless it is done for our edification (as in His prayer in Gethsemane). 

WE on the other hand are ignorant about much and not nearly as spiritually advanced as our Lord (obviously). As we grow, our "batting average" in prayer should improve – but it won't if we pray for things we know are contrary to the plan of God or for things we otherwise do not have sufficient faith that they will be answered.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:  
Hi Bob,

I may go another round here. Still not all clicked into place.

1) On the "good" in Romans 8:28

Hmm. I don't know if I'm not wording things well or what, but I still feel like maybe what I was asking wasn't clear? I don't think God "working all things out for good" is contradictory to scripture (? -- your first response used wording like this), and I have no doubts on God's intentions towards humanity/His inherent Goodness (re: the link from the most recent response). So this isn't some game to make the verse mean something weird and pervert God's Goodness or doubt His character or things along those lines.

Let me try phrasing things this way now: given that the "good" is limited solely to believers in this verse, what is its exact referent? That is, what specifically is the "good" in view here that is rendered to believers but not unbelievers? (N.B., it's not that I have issues coming up with any number of possible things this could be -- since God does endless good for us -- but I'm just trying to figure out what specifically Paul is getting at in context).

For example:

1) And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him (i.e., "the good" = His Plan is executed perfectly, taking into account all our free will decisions to bless us as much as we turn to Him, to maximize our spiritual benefit), who have been called according to his purpose.
2) And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him (i.e., "the good" = the process of foreknowing, ..., glorifying culminating in eternal life, as described in the following verses), who have been called according to his purpose.

A lot of the time it seems to me that this verse is quoted in isolation (i.e., absent surrounding context in Romans 8), and it seems to me like people take "the good" very generally, without any contextual referent. As in, "it's alright, God has a Plan, it will all work out the best way possible with God pulling the strings."

What got me on this topic was the observation that that sentiment seems to me to be perfectly true of God's attitude toward unbelievers as well. His actions towards them are perfect and loving and just too. He has planned out their lives too, and works it all out "for the best" for them too (to the extent He can, given their free will decisions).

So if the verse were to be taken primarily that way -- along the lines of (1) -- then why limit the scope to believers? The more I've turned to look at the surrounding passage (particularly verses 29 and 30, and very especially if we take the initial conjunction in v. 29 as causal, I would think), the more it seems to me like Paul is focused on specifics here: the specific sequence of vv. 29-30. Which would make people's overly-general usage of the verse (absenting the context) perhaps somewhat misleading?

Or am I splitting too many hairs here? I think this just set off my radar because I seem to constantly see "the good" in this verse referenced in a way that makes it seem, I dunno, like too general. Something that applies to unbelievers too (God's providential control of all History etc., rather than things only applicable to believers). Does that make any sense?

2) On Jesus praying for unbelievers

No verses on this that I can think of. Luke 23:34 -- "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" -- would be very apropos, except it is an interpolation and therefore not part of scripture. I just found it a bit odd how much emphasis was put on His words not being for unbelievers here in John 17:9, and it made me wonder if there were any prayers of His going the other way.

I was recently reviewing one of our past conversations about what exactly our prayers "do" -- an exchange titled "Interactions Between Prayer and God's Will" from April 2017. I wrote it all up recently, since I was addressing a passage in Exodus wherein Moses prayed and then God did not destroy the Israelites as He had anthropopathically threatened (compare also Nineveh in Jonah 3). I've got all that in hand now (there are no hypotheticals in the plan of God, and our prayers do in fact "do things" because "God is simply so intelligent and his plan so perfect that for all manifestations of the A, B relationship in the history of the world, God has positioned the individuals in question in such a way that A's (legitimate) prayers on B's behalf are fully efficacious, yet do not violate B's free will." That was the wording we came to settle on).

To the extent that Jesus' understanding of the Father's Will was not limited by kenosis (and I see no way to say it was without great theological danger), then I'd be likely to agree with you that:

1) Every single one of Jesus' prayers was answered
2) Therefore, it makes no sense for Him to pray for an unbeliever to be saved if He knew said person would not be saved

But what about people who He knew were close to coming to the truth? Wouldn't He be able to pray for such individuals that were not yet believers? Is this too much angels dancing upon pins (i.e., not important one way or the other)? 

I confess that thinking too hard about Jesus praying makes my brain hurt because of how His perfect knowledge must have made His prayers so drastically different from ours. I try not to be lazy about it, but when I pray for our country and the world at large, I usually leave it at something like "I don't know what the right answers are for the problems, but I trust you God, that you are working it all out according to your Perfect Plan." How much more powerful must His prayers have been, actually knowing the Father's Will!

Sometimes I pray for God's mercy even for unbelievers too. Like, if someone I know to be an unbeliever is in a lot of pain, I might pray that God relieve them of at least some of their agony. But again, here, I suppose we'd say that Jesus wouldn't pray such a prayer unless He knew God would actually lessen the pain of the person in question? Maybe?

I guess, do you think you could share any other thoughts on how Jesus' special knowledge -- whatever persisted through kenosis -- would interact with His prayers?

Thanks for your patience.

In Him,
Response #17:  
1) Re: "So if the verse were to be taken primarily that way – along the lines of (1) – then why limit the scope to believers?" I mostly agree with all of your analysis and everything you say here, but I do emphasize that this is a "for believers only" verse. God does do all He can for unbelievers too – Christ died for them as well, after all (and cf. Acts 14:17). But unbelievers end up in the lake of fire. That is unarguably "not good". But "for those who love God" the plan is not only delivering us from that awful result through the blood of Christ but also maximizing our eternal reward to the extent that we are willing to respond to Him. The "good" in both cases is limited not by God's goodness or power but by the decisions people make with their free will image of God; but in our case the end result is "good"; for unbelievers it definitely is not. As to people using the verse to promote a sort of Christian fatalism, you're preaching to the choir on that one. Not only is that misunderstanding a verse but it gives a really wrong message that can do a lot of damage. A believer who takes his/her bit in the mouth on that one and goes out and lives a dissolute life (extreme example) and ends up being saved by the skin of their teeth through the sin unto death does have "good" in the end – but it is not what God intends at all, obviously. We are "still here" and still "in the fight"; we take comfort from the fact that plan of God has it all worked out – but that does not relieve us of the responsibility to fight the fight. Between extreme Calvinism and Arminianism, with the one being fatalistic and the other "pins and needles", there is the correct biblical perspective of taking encouragement from our Lord's complete superintendence of "all things" and working them together for our good on the one hand, and the need for us to buckle down and run a good, disciplined race for Him on the other (hope I got the gist this time).

2) Here's a few passages to consider:
While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live.” So Jesus arose and followed him, and so did His disciples.
Matthew 9:18-19 NKJV

And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment. For she said to herself, “If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.” But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour.
Matthew 9:20-22 NKJV

And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.” Then He touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be to you.”
Matthew 9:28-9 NKJV
Through faith we are saved; through faith we grow; through faith our prayers are answered – even mountain moving prayers, if we believe.

In the three examples above, all had faith, albeit different levels of it. Without that faith, would they have had their petitions granted? Here's what James says:
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
James 1:5-8 NKJV
In terms of our Lord and kenosis, He was given to know the things which in His humanity He needed to know, and that definitely seems to include being informed of who did and who did not have the faith to be healed, e.g. That was also true of the apostles occasionally as well (Acts 14:9; cf. Acts 3:2-9). Neither they nor our Lord needed the Spirit to inform them about everyone in the world or even everyone with whom they crossed paths; only when it mattered (and only the Spirit could know that too). Our Lord, having become perfectly spiritually mature by at least the age of twelve and having had two decades of perfect experience and further growth thereafter was obviously closer to the Father and more attentive to the Spirit by orders of magnitude than any other believer could ever hope to be – but He accomplished that closeness on human terms, the same terms that, theoretically, we today could use to similar-in-kind (if not in degree) advantage. If we really were making all efforts to walk in the Spirit and follow the Spirit as closely as we should, our prayers would be better informed and more effective too. So while what we are presently doing is, we hope, "good", we could do better.

Hope this goes part of the way to answering the question this time!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:   
Hi Bob,

Yes, this got the gist this time. Thanks! Couple things to tie up ends:

1) On Romans 8:28

You said: But unbelievers end up in the lake of fire. That is unarguably "not good". But "for those who love God" the plan is not only delivering us from that awful result through the blood of Christ but also maximizing our eternal reward to the extent that we are willing to respond to Him. The "good" in both cases is limited not by God's goodness or power but by the decisions people make with their free will image of God; but in our case the end result is "good"; for unbelievers it definitely is not.

1.1) So, how is this for a summary in my own words? Does all this sound right?

The "good" in Romans 8:28 is not some general arranging of circumstances for our good that believers get, but unbelievers don't. God always blesses or punishes each person according to their true works, believer and unbeliever alike, giving each just as much "good" in a general sense as their free will allows. So why the binary distinction here -- making this comment believers-only? It is nothing but the fact that belief is binary. For when we believe, everything on the path God lays out before us leads to life eternal, deliverance from an eternity separate from God, and even rewards on top of that, since God is so gracious as to reward our efforts in following Him. (Though He wouldn't have to, elsewhere the Bible is clear that He does -- He is just waiting to reward us more, if we would but turn to Him more). All this -- the "end that leads to life" and even rewards on top of that -- is the "good" that God works for believers that He does not work for unbelievers, meaning that the "good" is simply the end result of our belief. As verses 29-30 go on to say, based upon our belief, the process of our salvation and deliverance has been written into the Plan of God. That process, ending in our glorification unto eternal life, is already recorded on the pages of future history (so to speak), such that all things that happen in our lives as believers are just steps on our road to the New Jerusalem.

It should be emphasized that the "good" that believers experience -- that is, God writing our salvation into His Plan, such that nothing in life can take that final destination and those waiting rewards from us -- is not arbitrary at all. God would render this good unto all, if only all would turn to Him in faith.

All of this is important to keep in mind when we quote Romans 8:28. It is not so much that one must always quote verses 29-30 alongside it (although that is not a bad practice at all, to preserve the important context). But we must take care to define what "good" Paul is here saying is specific to believers. It is not some sort of fatalism, God merely providentially working out all circumstances unto some positive outcome. He does that even for unbelievers too, in the sense that God's Plan is completely perfect so works absolutely everything out for ultimate good without exception. No, what this verse is getting at is really nothing but the positive consequences of belief; it is simply another place in scripture that makes it clear that when we believe, God does the rest -- "works all things together for us" -- to turn that belief into salvation from sin and death, even into eternal life. It is an exhortation for us to have confidence as believers (confidence that we do have eternal life in trusting in Him), and at the same time an exhortation for unbelievers to believe.

1.2) Do you see eternal rewards as being directly in view here? Aren't verses 29-30 more talking about salvation/eternal life?

It seems to me like verses 29-30 are mostly focused on salvation/eternal life. I don't disagree with part of the "good" being God rewarding us on top of salvation, but we get that from things external to this passage mostly, right (other places in scripture talking about eternal rewards)?

I guess, basically what I'm asking is if it is true that we don't get the eternal rewards bit from verses 29-30 directly (or the other surrounding context), but are sort of reading it in as implied?

If we take the hoti casually at the beginning of verse 29, doesn't it mean that Paul is directly saying that what it means for God to "work all things according to the good of those who love Him" is specifically what he says in verses 29-30 -- that that is what he has in mind re: God doing this for us?

I just want to be clear on what scripture we are using to support what point, if that makes sense.

-----------------------------------------------------

2) More on kenosis

In terms of our Lord, He was given to know the things which in His humanity He needed to know, and that definitely seems to include being informed of who did and who did not have the faith to be healed, e.g. That was also true of the apostles occasionally as well (Acts 14:9; cf. Acts 3:2-9). Neither they nor our Lord needed the Spirit to inform them about everyone in the world or even everyone with whom they crossed paths; only when it mattered (and only the Spirit could know that). Our Lord, having become perfectly spiritually mature by at least the age of twelve and having had two decades of perfect experience and further growth thereafter was obviously closer to the Father and more attentive to the Spirit by orders of magnitude than any other believer could ever hope to be -- but He did it on human terms, the same terms that, theoretically, we today could use to similar-in-kind (if not in degree) advantage.

To double check then, would it be true to say that Jesus having special knowledge of a person's salvation or belief (through the power of the Holy Spirit) was not universal, but only occurred as necessary in the Plan of God?

So, for example, He knew His purpose in dying upon the cross, but not every single thought of those around Him in full Divine Omniscience. Is that the best way to think about it? That He was "a human just like us" (but without sin)... except when occasionally He had miraculous knowledge through the Spirit. Just like the Apostles had too, from time to time, also through the Spirit (as in Acts 14:9).

In Him,
Response #18:  
1) Nice!

1.2) The process of working out good is explained in v.29 ending in "glory" which is eternity (and that entails rewards for sure).

2) We are limited by what scripture says. Since as you say our Lord was human and also under the restrictions we call "kenosis", i.e., not using His deity to aid His humanity which would have invalidated His sacrifice, in His humanity it seems fair to conclude that His knowledge was not omniscience. So for example at Luke 7:9, when the messengers of the centurion tell Him that the centurion said He need only "speak the word (of command)", Luke says "When Jesus heard these things, He marveled at him" – which seems unlikely if He was given to know ahead of time what the centurion was thinking / had commanded his messengers to say. There are plenty of things like this in the gospels (e.g., Matt.17:17). Reminds me of the Elijah and the Shunammite's son:
When she reached the man of God at the mountain, she took hold of his feet. Gehazi came over to push her away, but the man of God said, “Leave her alone! She is in bitter distress, but the LORD has hidden it from me and has not told me why.”
2nd Kings 4:27 NIV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19: 
Hello--I hope you are staying well. I have yet another question about Matthew 16:18. I know there is a difference between "petros" used of Peter, and "petra" when Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my church." Of course, you know Catholics claim Jesus was saying the church would be built upon Peter, even though there is a completely different word used there with a different meaning. 

Well, a Catholic I know of, who is basically a nice guy, wrote this to me on CARM:

"The Catholic explanation for this is that Jesus did not use any Greek words at all. The Greek is used by those who translated Jesus' actual words. And so they are going to follow the rules of Greek grammar. One rule is that proper names must match the gender of the person they name. It would have been grammatically incorrect (not to mention insulting) to give Simon any name in the feminine gender. The reason for not calling Simon "Petros" is that as a proper name he could not possibly be called Petra just because of the conventions of proper names. But when speaking of the rock upon which Jesus would build his church, the emphasis is on the object, the rock. It is not being used as a proper name at that point. It is literary style and nothing more."

I think he is wrong. I pointed out that Paul refers to Christ as the "petra" in 1 Cor. 10:4, where he writes that "and they all drank from the same spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ." I know "Christ (Christos) is masculine and "petra" is feminine. 

Anyway, I would appreciate your input about this. Thanks and God bless you. 
Response #19:  
First, regarding the gender argument, it makes no linguistic sense. If I say to you, "You are a rock", rocks are neuter in English but you are not – so am I wrong? Of course not. People and things can be described by other people and things. This happens in all languages at all times. In fact, petros is masculine; if the Lord had wanted to say, "on this petros", He surely could have done so. That would avoid the false problem this person sees. The only reason for Christ to have changed the word was because He wanted to do so for the meaning. 

In terms of Aramaic/Hebrew, the words for "stone" ('ebhen) and "large rock" (sela') are quite different. So even positing an Aramaic Vorlage as the original conversation, we would only expect a change in the Greek if two different words were used originally, and meaning what the Greek words mean as well.

As mentioned in the past, Jesus and the apostles were tri-lingual, speaking Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. There is abundant scriptural information to support this (see the link). But even if this was said in Aramaic originally and not in Greek, e.g., are we saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in inspiring Matthew to use this other word? And why would Matthew change the word anyway? Playing this game, i.e., suggesting that we really don't know what is in the gospels until we back-translate them into Aramaic is a fools errand . . . for anyone who has any faith in the Bible whatsoever. The New Testament was written in Greek – inspired in Greek – for a good reason: this was the language of the Roman empire in the east and well-understood in the west as well (not Aramaic). 

This is just a dodge, a completely illogical one, and one based upon a misunderstanding of the languages in question and how language works generally.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:  
Hello--Thanks for your input. I agree with you. As for your first line, this Catholic claims that Petros was a personal name, whereas calling Jesus the Petra, as Paul did, doesn't count, because Petra here isn't a personal name. 

I pointed out to him that Peter wrote 2 epistles in Greek, but this guy says he was uneducated and probably dictated his epistles to a scribe. I told him that he may not have been well-educated, as Paul was, but most Jewish boys attended synagogue schools and learned to read and write, so they could read scriptures. But even if Peter had dictated his epistles to a scribe, that still means Peter wrote them. Paul sometimes used scribes and he certainly could read and write. 

I and others also pointed out where Paul says Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the church, and with the prophets and apostles, and that no one can lay another foundation than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. I also added Revelation 21. So far, he has ignored these references. 

With your kind indulgence, could you please look at a couple more things this gentleman wrote? And comment? 

"But it is Jesus' intentions that are relevant. You maintain that Jesus' intentions were to identify himself as the rock in this conversation, using linguistic structure that was not used between Jesus and Simon. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kephas. The Aramaic word for "little stone" is "evna," and Peter was not called "Evna" or "Envas" or anything like that. In Aramaic, Jesus said "You are Peter (Kephas) and upon this rock (kephas) I will build my Church." The metaphor worked well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine or masculine, but in Greek, the noun "rock" was feminine, and therefore unsuitable as a name for Peter. So the Aramaic word Kephas was translated to the masculine name Petros when it referred to Peter, and to the feminine noun petra when it referred to the rock. In ancient Koine Greek, petra and petros were total synonyms, unlike modern Attic Greek and unlike Ionic Greek which was about 400 year before Christ."

His last line sounds false to me--that in Koine Greek, petra and petros were "total synonyms." I don't think that is true at all.

To continue:

What I wrote after the above: "I don't think this is true. Jesus was and is male, but in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul called HIM "petra", which is feminine--'And that Petra was Christ.'"

"That is not the same as giving Jesus an alternate proper name. The gender correspondence only has to apply when used as a proper name. In 1 Cor 10:4, 'petra' refers to Jesus' function, not to his proper name."

I pointed out that the demonstrative "this" changes the focus of what Jesus said, but this man wrote, "that is acceptable sentence structure." 

Sure it is, but that isn't what I meant. "This" changes the focus of what Jesus said. I mean, even their very own Catechism says that the Rock Jesus founded His church upon is the truth of Peter's confession! 

I seem to remember your telling me once about the dangers of people who study some Greek or Hebrew, and then think they are experts in the language. I suspect this guy is getting this information from some Catholic website, that tells Catholics how to respond to Protestants who point out that Jesus wasn't founding His church upon a mere man, but Himself. 

I will try not to bother you any more about this but I would appreciate anything you can tell me about what this person wrote. No hurry. Take care and God bless you and your patience with me. 
Response #20:  
My pleasure.

Re: "Aramaic only had one word for rock" – not true. I gave the petra equivalent in my last email (sela'); akin to the word in Hebrew (slightly different vocalization). 

Re: "You maintain that Jesus' intentions were to identify himself as the rock in this conversation, using linguistic structure that was not used between Jesus and Simon." Also not the case. The near demonstrative "this" (Gk. houtos) is used often of the person doing the speaking. "This Rock" is referring to Jesus. He's pointing to Himself as in the exactly parallel passage in John where with the word "this" He means Himself and not the physical temple:
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
John 2:19-20 NKJV
So "this Rock" refers to Jesus and not to Peter, as Peter himself well understood:
Coming to Him as to a living [corner-]stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious.
1st Peter 2:4 NKJV

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
1st Peter 2:7-8 NKJV
Re: "[in Greek] the noun "rock" was feminine, and therefore unsuitable as a name for Peter." Correspondent has confused himself mightily here. If I say to someone "You're a brick!", I'm giving them a compliment for their steadfastness. It doesn't matter that bricks are neuter and the person I'm speaking with is either masculine or feminine.  Also, since I assume that correspondent wants Peter to be "the rock", why wouldn't this "problem" he sees be the same problem for Peter as for Christ since they are both masculine in gender?

*And if Jesus were speaking of Peter, why didn't He say "on this petros"? Why did He say instead "on this petra"? After all, that would avoid the change to the feminine noun correspondent finds problematic. The only reason for the change was to indicate a shift of subject . . . from the petros (Peter) to the ROCK upon which the whole Church of Christ is built:
. . . and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
1st Corinthians 10:4 NKJV
The word "rock" here is petra, not petros. Paul has no problem calling Christ a petra, even though it is a feminine noun, because, as mentioned twice now, we refer to people as objects all the time without any concern for the fact that the object has a different gender from the person to whom it is being compared. Gender agreement does not apply when nouns modify nouns, only when adjectives/pronouns/participles modify nouns. 

Re: "In ancient Koine Greek, petra and petros were total synonyms, unlike modern Attic Greek and unlike Ionic Greek which was about 400 year before Christ." Your skepticism about this statement is correct. Correspondent obviously knows little about Greek. "Modern" Greek is not Attic Greek. Attic Greek is aka Classical Greek. Ionic Greek is a dialect coterminous with Attic/Classical Greek and almost indistinguishable from it (Herodotus writes in Ionic); the difference between the way they talk in Maine and the way they talk in Mississippi is greater than that between Attic and Ionic. 

As far as Koine is concerned, that is essentially all Greek from about the third century B.C. onward. It is "common" because the Macedonians, needing to communicate with Greeks of various backgrounds in their polyglot armies and administrative functions, used Attic Greek, the dialect most Greeks knew best after their home dialect, slightly simplified but understandable to all (Athens remained the cultural capital of Greece long after it lost any claim on political dominance: everyone read Attic history, tragedy, philosophy, oratory, etc.). Plato would have had no trouble reading the New Testament and Paul . . . well, Paul read many other classical authors so he had probably read some Plato as well. The notion that Koine is significantly different from other ancient Greek is a huge and potentially misleading error which is being perpetuated by people who don't know much (or any) Greek. If you've every actually read the Greek NT and any Classical author you would know that it is the same language – it's just that later Greek tends to be less complicated in its style.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/