http://ichthys.com/ 
New Testament Interpretation X
Question #1:   
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I was reading the differences between the NLT and NASB Bibles, and came across these verses.

1. John 3:7 - "So don't be surprised when I say, 'You' must be born again.

In the NLT Bible there is an * by the word You. Following the note on the bottom of the page I read this:

* The Greek word for 'you' is plural, and also in Verse 12.

I take the "you" in the plural form to refer to everyone.

The German Bible has the word "ihr",

Just want to validate this with you.

2. In John 3:8, I suddenly realized that the "we" is also speaking of the triune Godhead, because it is also a plural word; I never realized this, and I have read it many, many times.

When a person does not know the Gk. like me, I don't know the Greek, it can make a difference.

Hope you are keeping cool these very hot days.

P.S.
Please pray for my Granddaughter's Mother in Law, who has 4th stage colon cancer. I have been praying for a while already. 

She is a Catholic person all her life, and I have been asking God to give me the opportunity to speak to her about being Born-Again, which I doubt she knows about. She is not today under the care of Hospice, so I am thinking she won't live much longer.

Please also pray for my Granddaughter and her husband who is a wonderful person. I have been praying for them about being born-again also. I appreciate your prayers.

I talked with my daughter today and mentioned the tribulation, the Anti-Christ and the Mark of the Beast which she knows a little bit about. She is born-again, but I don't know about my granddaughter or her husband.

Thanks so much,

Blessings to you,

Your friend,
Response #1:   
On point #1, that is very interesting. Our Lord actually says in John 3:7 "don't be amazed that I said to YOU YOURSELF (singular: soi), that YOU ALL (plural: hymas) must be born again/from above". So the shift from singular to plural is hard for Greek speakers to miss. It means "For both you and all your unbelieving fellow followers of the Law who are not accepting Me as Messiah along with everyone else in Israel, there is only one way to be saved: put your trust in Me".

On point #2, a good observation about John 3:11. "We" is Jesus and the Spirit in the will of the Father.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness."
John 3:11 NKJV
I have been keeping your family in my daily prayers for you, my friend, and will continue to do so. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. And thanks so much for your prayers too!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:  
Hi Dr,

Can you provide meaning around Col 1:24, "what is lacking in Christ's affliction"?

I will also do some additional research.

I pray all is well with you and your family.

In Christ our Lord
Response #2:  
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.
Colossians 1:24 NKJV
Paul is speaking of what HE still is destined to fulfill in suffering for Christ's sake (see the link), that is, in "sharing in the sufferings of Christ" to which all mature believers are called to one degree or another.
But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
Acts 9:15-16 NIV
It's important to remember that all the trials and tribulations that come to us as those who belong to Him are "nothing to be compared to the glories to come".
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Romans 8:18 NKJV
Here's a link to where this passage is explained in more detail: "What is lacking?"

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:  
I hope you haven't given up on me, though it must be tempting sometimes.
Response #3:   
I haven't given up on you.

Today is posting day and it has been an incredibly difficult week and weekend wherein I have not even had all Saturday to devote to job #1. I hope to have time tomorrow to catch up and emails and plan to get back to you then.

I am keeping you and your family in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Thank you Robert, you are a good friend. And a valued one.

The fact that I didn't struggle and gave in, willingly, to those sins (which is what John says about believers being unable to practice sin, which I did, all the while going on my way and not feeling guilty) 

All the passages about branches not bearing fruit and being cut off and burned and trees being withered or uprooted... I worry about what those passages are saying to me. And then I wonder if I don't have confidence of those sins being forgiven because God is keeping me from having that because those ones aren't. Isn't saving faith trusting Jesus for the forgiveness of all your sins? But I'm unsure if God is willing to forgive those committed again, wilfully after knowing and sitting in them. Again. Did I have an unpardonable attitude God is unwilling to forgive?

I don't know how to find the confidence of those sins being forgiven 

I really truly want to know the Lord, and to walk closely with Him and to exercise true repentance every day. I want to love Him with all my heart, mind, soul and strength and know His forgiveness. More than anything.

But I'm really unsure if He hasn't turned His face away from me for good. I really am sorry to God for what I've done, for the sins committed. It was incredibly stupid and careless of me to 'neglect so great a salvation'. Now I fear its too late as even when I read the Bible with hope, the warning and condemning passages cause unsureness or doubt in me. And God hates doubt. It's really hard and I don't know how to get to where I wish and pray I could be. It's not that I don't believe He is willing to forgive me for that, I'm just unsure.

Also, does that make me an unbeliever?

Or unsaved, having faith but lacking saving faith?

You must cringe when you see an email from me.
Response #4:  
Again, sorry for the delay. Not only was it posting day yesterday but I am under heavy pressure here. Thanks for prayer and for patience with me in being more than a little oblique. Things are in flux. Should know by the end of this week or next whether things will resolve – and I will let you know about that. Did get some encouraging news today, so thank you! Just not "out of the woods" quite yet.

As to 1st John, as one of my seminary professors correctly explained to us one time, this epistle gives the "Christian job description" in certain places: Christians don't sin (that is, they SHOULD not). But that the position that John is saying that anyone who sins is not a Christian is ludicrous is very clear. If that were so, why would John be the one – in the same letter – to tell us that we should confess our sins and that if say we don't have sins to confess that we are making God out to be a liar (1Jn.1:8-10)? Why would he say the following?

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
1st John 2:1 NIV

So we should NOT sin; but since we DO sin, we need confess (1Jn.1:9), and we can take comfort in the fact that the dear Lord who loves us and bought us free from the bondage of sin with His own blood, His death on the cross for us, is our Advocate when and if we do sin.

As to branches being cut off in John chapter 15, believers who turn away from Christ by reverting to being unbelievers are of course cut off. That is apostasy. The complete death of any spark of faith. In such cases there is no "once saved, always saved". You have to preserve your faith intact until the end for salvation. You have to keep believing in Christ. That is what a believer is in the NT, someone who "is believing" in Christ – not someone who once did but now does not (Lk.8:13). Here is Paul explaining precisely what this means:
(19) Now someone may say "Branches have been broken off for me to be grafted in." True enough. (20) They were broken off because of their unbelief, and you stand secure because of your faith. But do not think arrogant thoughts. Rather, have a care. (21) For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. (22) So consider God's mercy and severity. For He is severe towards those who have fallen away, but merciful towards you – if, that is, you continue in that mercy (i.e., continue to belong to Him as a believer). (23) And if they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted back in. For God is able to graft them back in again.
Romans 11:19-23
So it is faith, belief, which is the measure of who belongs to Him and who does not.

As to "faith but not saving faith" . . . there is no such thing. Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He died for you? If so, then you are a believer. Look, David murdered and committed adultery . . . but was still a believer. Peter denied the Lord three times publicly . . . but was still a believer. Scripture from start to finish is filled with examples of believers making bad mistakes . . . but they don't lose their salvation because of sins, even egregious ones. How is salvation lost? It is only lost if a person STOPS being a believer. The test of that is whether or not a person believes in Jesus Christ. People who were believers do in fact sometimes get to the point where they are no longer believe. How does that happen? Various ways. Often people blame God for bad things that happen in their lives and are tricked by the evil one into "believing" that He doesn't exist and that Jesus is not who He says He is. This is the seed that falls on the rocky ground which wilts and DIES under pressure (the plant sprung from the seed represents faith). There are plenty of faith plants that get choked by the temptations of this world and the result is a lack of production which means little to no reward – but they are still saved because the plant – faith – does not die.

What is the role of sin? Sin is being disobedient to God and it's difficult to turn your back on Him and ignore Him so as to do what you want and reject what He wants without damaging one's faith. But God has provided a solution. Jesus died for ALL sin so that ALL sin and unrighteousness is forgiven believers when we confess (1Jn.1:9).

The test of still being a believer and of being forgiven is NOT how we are feeling emotionally at any given moment. Growing, mature believers learn to listen to the Spirit and to the truth they have learned and NOT to their feelings – which may be upset for all manner of reasons, not the least of which is the evil one prodding them with guilt about the past.

Believers who are stuck in a cycle of walk, fall, drift, walk, fall again of course have a hard time. Any child will skin its knees when it falls and if it is skinning those knees before they've even had a chance to heal they will be in some serious pain – but that doesn't make them NOT your child. For our children to become NOT our children would require such a violent and horrific rejection of us that we don't even want to contemplate it. That is what being a child of God is like as well. 

Simply put: if you were no longer a believer you would no longer care about God or about salvation or about Jesus Christ . . . and there is no way you would be writing me emails about this (or about anything else).

By the way, the recent posting this week is about this issue in part (and there is plenty more where this came from at Ichthys if you check through the previous postings).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:  
Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you and your work. I think of you often and refer your work to others frequently. I just keep reading slowly through your two part series because it helps me to keep things in perspective in the midst of a confused world both inside and outside of the church.

May the Lord Jesus keep you and bless you always,
Response #5:   
Thanks so much for this, my friend!

"Confused" is putting it mildly! But we keep our eyes on the Lord.

Hope to have part/chapter three of Hebrews out sometime early this summer [n.b.: chapter seven now available at the link; link to the Hebrews main page].

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:  
Dear Bob,

I've been reading the section of your site, "The Study of the Bible", and one question has been coming to mind. I haven't fully explored the site, but I wanted to ask which version of the bible you recommend? Up until this point, I've been reading the King James Version, which is fine, but I did want to eventually read from one that didn't include things such as any of the longer endings of Mark, for example. Which version do you think is the most helpful here?
Response #6:  
I'll give you some links to where you can find my comments on various versions and their "pluses and minuses". 

KJV is a wonderful version, but the language is challenging for modern readers (regardless of the sub-version of the KJV we're talking about), and it does include most of the major false interpolations (see the link). But it's not as if we have to choose. I make use of a number of different versions and I encourage readers to do the same, consulting multiple translations especially when you come across something that seems problematic to you (because it might be the result of a rendering unique to the version you're reading). 

Here are those links:
Version strengths and weaknesses (in RB)
The Translations (in BB 7)
In Jesus,

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

The fact of English words that are used in the past tense does sometimes, not seem to me to be appropriate to the subject being addressed.

Such as in Genesis 1 verse 1 and John 1 verse 1:

"In he beginning" in both of these passages, in addition to word "was".

I know what they mean from the study I have done, but someone who is a baby Christian perhaps will wonder about these words.

Perhaps it is the English language that has difficulty with being translated from Hebrew or Greek, with the failure sometimes of the English not having anything that can really express what the foreign language is really saying.

I know this is true due to my knowledge of German from my spouse. Languages have always fascinated me, especially the etymology of the words that are used.

For example: in the last part of John 1:1, it says: "and the Word was God", using "was" as in the past tense. Why not say "is" in the present tense.

In other parts of Scripture, the translators use "man", where person would be a better word to use.

I have the habit of reading and looking at every single word, I never skip over anything because I am used to doing that all my life. 

Oh well, I guess it is just me, but I know there is an answer for this. I think I have perhaps missed my calling, which is being an etymologist, which is what I really should have gone into, because I love it. but.....

Can you provide an explanation to this dilemma, for I know you have the answer.

Blessings to you always,

Your curious friend,
P.S. Please pray for my Granddaughter as she has contracted Covid, but is doing okay. Would much appreciate.
Response #7:   
If by "dilemma" you mean translation, that is an art as well as a science. There is a Latin proverb, translatores tradiutores, meaning "translators are traitors" – because no translation can hope to do justice to a work of art, and all translations are by nature flawed. What seems a good translation to me might not to you, and in any case it is NOT what the original says . . . because it is a translation, not the original. 

Anyone who knows another language well understands that this will always be the case, but sadly most American Christians know nothing but English and have the warped idea that rendering Hebrew and Greek into English is a matter of a mere mechanical process. In fact, of course, a person needs 1) to understand Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic in places) perfectly (and no one is perfect); and, critically, 2) to understand the meaning of the text being translated perfectly (whereas most translators who are skilled in their craft don't know nearly as much about the truth of scripture as you do, e.g.). Add to this the fact that our language and culture is currently and ever in flux – and more so every day, given technology and the sad state of our culture. The way I would have rendered things forty years ago is not how I would do so today in order to effectively communicate what is in the text – even assuming my own knowledge as static (which blessedly in not the case). 

So the bottom line is that we do the best we can 1) to understand what the Bible is actually saying, and 2) to communicate that to those willing to learn, through translation, paraphrase, detailed explanations and general teaching – whatever it takes. There is no unyielding system or methodology other that listening to the Spirit and putting our effort and tools to work diligently and as best we can. 

I have two email postings series which deal with these issues. Here are the links to the most recent of each (you can work backwards from there if so interested):
Biblical Languages, Texts and Translations XII
Bible Versions, Bible Translation, and Bible Reading VII
If you'd like to discuss some of these passages further, I'm happy to do so.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
*p.s., I pray for your grandchildren daily; I have said a prayer on this request now too.
Question #8:  
Hello professor,

Is it correct to say that we do not know when the Bible stopped being read to the common person in a language they spoke? It was probably after the 9th century, so that it may have been 200-900 years, but we don't know?

Respectfully,
Response #8:  
I'm not sure we can say anything like this definitively because 1) Greeks have always been able to understand it, more or less (the Greek Orthodox church still uses THE Greek NT as its Bible); 2) there were many translations throughout the world in antiquity and it would depend on, say, whether or not, just for example, the Armenian version ever became non-understandable to Armenians (and if so, when).

If we are talking about Roman Catholicism, the era of Sardis when that church died spiritually entirely corresponds to the 12th century. For many European countries there weren't translations from the Latin version in many cases, but, for example, the Gothic Bible dates to the 6th century. I'm not certain when Gothic stopped being a living language. 

One would hope that before the western church died that there were individuals teaching the Word (we know about some of this); if so, no doubt they were explaining / translating individual passages (that seems certain inasmuch as there was and remains a great deal of "cultural Christian knowledge" abroad even among unbelievers). 

So it's a language by language situation, and we probably can't recover more than a minuscule part of what we'd need to know to answer this question with authority. Might make a good Ph.D. thesis though!

What we can also say is the God has never allowed desire for the truth by any of His children to go unsatisfied.

In Jesus,

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

I am preparing a study on Abraham, and I have a question on this verse.

So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
Genesis 15:9 NKJV

What is the reason that the heifer, female goat and ram, had to be three-years old?

I have an idea, but not sure if that is correct: Does the three-years of age indicate their strength or length of the covenant that God made with Abram?

Thanks always for your responses, they help me tremendously.

May God's blessing be with you always,

Your Friend,

Response #9:   
Sacrifices under the Law were frequently of "one year old" lambs and etc. This is the only place where anything "three years old" is sacrificed (pace commentators who want to make the three bulls at 1Sam.1:24 one three year old bull – that is NOT what the text there says). This word, the pual participle of the verb meaning "to triple" ought to mean "tripled" or "made three-fold"; that is what it means elsewhere. According to Leupold in Expositions of Genesis, the Targums have "three of each" instead of "three years old". That is what I get from the Hebrew as well, i.e., "a triple number of heifers, female goats, and rams". 

In any case, whether we have three of each of three types or one of each of three types three years old, the repetition of the number three is what is significant. To me, this speaks in the broadest terms of the Trinity, yet another sign that there were plenty of indications of the three-fold Persons of the Godhead from the earliest times.

I would be interested in hearing what you've come up with on this. There are a great number of details in this chapter which are not so easy to interpret. When it comes to all such symbolism, my policy has been to be dogmatic only about things which are absolutely clear, and to embrace symbolism which accords with truths which are clearly taught elsewhere.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:  
I am glad to share my strategy with you.

When I first looked at Genesis 15 verse 8, and saw the 3 years old for each of the animals, the thought crossed my mind, is this speaking of the Trinity, but then I thought that I would ask you to make sure.

Here is what I did for this particular passage of Genesis 15:8,

I connected the sacrifice of each animal and the pigeon and turtledove with the following scriptures, because I remembered them having read about the sacrifices before.

Genesis 15:8:21 to Luke 1:26-34 and Luke 2:23-24.

Genesis 15:8 to Psalm 50:5, and Psalm 50:22-23.

Genesis 15:9 to Leviticus 5, 7 and Lev. 8:18-23 and Lev. 8:23-24; and Lev. 9:1-8; Lev. 4:28 and Lev. 5:6.

Genesis 15:13 to Exodus 3:7-9; and Acts 7:6-7.

Genesis 15:14 to Exodus 14:19-20, and Exodus 14:22-25; and Exodus 12:33-36.

As to laying the pieces on the altar, I thought about the fact that God is extremely orderly in all things, thus the placement of the sacrifice.

I hope my strategy is correct; I thought about this for quite a while prior to making a decision I thought was correct.

Your comments would be extremely helpful, and yes it took some praying and thinking before.

Many blessings to you,

Your friend,
Response #10:  
These are great parallels, my friend!

I do think this is one of the main points behind animal and other sacrifices generally, namely, to teach us about the sacrifice of Christ, and so to connect up everything that was done under the Law to the grace of God – similar to remembering our Lord today in eating and drinking (communion).

Have you got a new group to teach there now again?

Keeping you and your wife in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

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

Many thanks for your concurrence with my strategy. 

I revelation this morning as I was studying Genesis 17:9, and the Light in me went on, so to speak, that I realized the this verse explains the reason why Abraham knew that even if he sacrificed Isaac as The LORD told Him, he knew according to this verse, that God would restore Isaac again. I never saw that before until today. God is sooooo amazing.

Well, I have not had the opportunity to teach another group yet, but I have been praying that if it is God's will and plan, He will provide the group or tell me how to go about it, I am sure.

I have no real desire to get involved with another "church", for I have had too many back experiences and accusations that were untrue thrown at me.

Besides that, most of them preach, and do not teach, and some of what they try to teach is certainly unbiblical in a number of areas of God's Word.

I do have a burning desire to teach, but as yet, no door has been opened.

I had a brother in the LORD tell me to get involved in a Church and make friends, but it's the same old stuff again that I don't want to encounter again.

Sooooo....

I wait.

Many thanks again for your excellent help as always,

Please pray that God will open a door for me to teach, for I have a burning desire to do so, for His glory.

Many Blessings to you always,

Your friend,
Response #11:   
Indeed! We should all make the same deduction Abraham did: if God promised it, then it will happen, so we have nothing to worry about. In fact, in Hebrews it reminds us that the Lord not only promised it but strengthened that promise with an oath, so that "by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged" (Heb.6:18 NIV).

OK, I'll be keeping that in prayer. You have a LOT to offer, my friend. Here's hoping (and praying) that the Lord will provide some ready ears for you soon. Meantime, you are demonstrating your faithfulness by preparing – as well as by refusing to compromise.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:  
Hi Bob,

I'm writing some stuff about Romans 1 at the moment, and have a question about interpretation.

I started off explaining "the due penalty for their error" in Romans 1:27 simply as death, since death is the consequence of sin (Romans 6:23a, James 1:15, etc.). Physical death, spiritual death, eternal/second death, and so on.

However, in reading and re-reading the passage, I started wondering if maybe some of the English versions are too interpretive in their translation:

Romans 1:27, NLT
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

This translation forces the interpretation that the penalty is for the homosexuality rather than the homosexuality itself being the penalty for the idolatry mentioned earlier in the passage. It seems to me like verse 24 is basically saying that God giving them over to the shameful behavior of the homosexuality is itself the "τὴν ἀντιμισθιαν ἣν ἔδει της πλανης αὐτὴν ἐν ἑαυτοις ἀπολαμβανοντες" in verse 27, making the penalty then a consequence ultimately of the idolatry not the homosexuality? Perhaps the "within themselves" (ἐν ἑαυτοις) bit might then also tie in with the "whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body" bit of 1 Corinthians 6:18?

Or is the NLT's way of taking it actually what is correct? What do you think?

In Him,
Response #12:  
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:27 NIV
If I'm reading your email correctly, the question is what is the "error" because the penalty derives from the error. If the error is the original error of unbelief and idolatry, then the shame of such behavior is the penalty; otherwise, the penalty is not specified but can be understood as cursing in time (and then the eventuality which faces all unbelievers).

I'm not sure it's necessary to choose between the two. That is to say, both can be true at the same time and the language admits of that: these individuals suffer from being drawn into this destructive behavior in the first place and suffer as well from the cursing such behavior engenders. 

NLT is a highly interpretative translation and clearly wants to take it the second way and not the first. KJV, on the other hand, and many other versions leave it more ambiguous – which I think is proper here.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:  
Hi Bob,

I suppose, upon reflection, that I perhaps should have phrased it as a twofold question:

1) What is the error?
2) What is the penalty?

As far as I can see, none of the main translations except the NLT explicitly identify the error, but instead leave it ambiguous, as it is in the Greek. For example: https://biblehub.com/romans/1-27.htm

Additionally, none of the translations specifically identify what the penalty for the error is (that is, make it so it could only be taken as one thing), leaving that ambiguous in its specifics as well. What I mean by "ambiguous" in both these cases is that the text does not "force" a single point of view; multiple interpretations could be made to work textually, even if only one of them is correct. That makes this a matter of interpretation rather than a matter of simple translation.

My initial confusion stemmed from wondering "well, which way ought we take it?" I first pulled up the comparison of versions, wherein I came across the NLT, which makes that interpretive leap (i.e., identifies the error in view specifically as homosexuality). Since I couldn't find anything on Ichthys hitting this specifically, I then did a general internet search for what other people thought the "error" and the "penalty" were here.

For example, a couple answers on a StackExchange question take things as the error being idolatry and the penalty actually being the homosexuality itself:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/35806
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/35804

I wasn't 100% convinced (I never lean on that site too much as a formal source, but do find it occasionally useful to see "what's out there"). And that's when I emailed you.

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

OK, so that's the background. Questions of clarification:

"If the error is the original error of unbelief and idolatry, then the shame of such behavior is the [You wrote] penalty; otherwise, the penalty is not specified but can be understood as cursing in time (and then the eventuality which faces all unbelievers)."

1) What is "such behavior" in what you write here? Idolatry? Homosexuality? Is the first if clause here saying "error = idolatry, penalty = shame of homosexuality"?

2) With regards to the "otherwise", if the error is not the original error of unbelief and idolatry, does that mean the otherwise = the error is homosexuality? Or is the otherwise just giving an alternate possibility for the penalty, not the error?

"I'm not sure it's necessary to choose between the two. That is to say, both can be true at the same time and the language admits of that: these individuals suffer from being drawn into this destructive behavior in the first place and suffer as well from the cursing such behavior engenders."

3) What are the "two things" exactly? As in, in terms of what we are taking the error and penalty as in either of the two?

4) "They suffer from being drawn into this destructive behavior in the first place and suffer to from the cursing such behavior engenders" -- this is saying that the penalty can be both them getting drawn into the homosexuality to begin with, and also the cursing that such behavior causes? Would we then say that both errors are in view too: that the idolatry leads to God giving them over to the shameful behavior of homosexuality, which further leads to additional cursing on account of this new round of sinful actions? This would be akin to the virtuous cycle of spiritual growth, but the opposite?

5) I guess I'd never thought about it much before, but I suppose sometimes the right answer in interpretation is not an "exclusive or", but a "both/and". So then to word things that way, are you saying that the clause "receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" is serving to speak to "all of the above" = because of their idolatry, God gave them over to homosexuality (verse 24 and 26a); but also because of that shameful behavior of homosexuality, additional cursing too will follow?

Sorry to make this so verbose.

In Him,
Response #13:   
To the extent that the error is "suppressing the truth" (Rom.1:18), the penalty is "handing them over to a reprobate mind" (Rom.1:28); to the extent that the error is specifically "abandoning natural relations", then the penalty is the natural results of such degrading behavior.

So I think what you say in #5 is correct and as close as we can come to parsing this out without committing to an interpretation which is wrong by way of unwarranted exclusivity.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Hello Bob,

I want to ask a quick question, as I don't know who to ask.

In Hebrews 6:6 the “crucifying afresh” participle appears to be circumstantial, but i read that if it were accusative (which blue letter Bible says it is), the gender would have to be neuter (which blue letter Bible says its not).

Im just trying to clarify something in my head without getting into doctrine. As i dont know Greek im going off of the info available to me.

Hopefully you don't mind just clarifying that grammatically.

Thank you.
Response #14:  
Good to hear from you.

Yes, the participle I do take as circumstantial and in particular as temporal: "as long as [you] are crucifying . . . ".

This is an accusative plural masculine participle agreeing with the other participle and forming the subject of the infinitive (where the rule is for the subject of the inf. to be acc.). So no complicated or confusing or unusual grammar here.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:  
Thank you so much Bob.

The “rule” of the subject being infinitive is what i was referring to…so what would be the infinitive subject i guess is my question?

Because I saw it stated that: ACCUSATIVE -“it is found when the verb in which the participle belongs is impersonal or so used, or when it is an impersonal expression; in this case the subject of the participle is usually an infinitive, as it would be if an impersonal verb in some finite mood was used. This kind of participle is always put in the neuter gender, modifying a neuter noun, as an infinitive really is.”

But the “crucifying afresh” participle is not neuter, but masculine, so that made it seem like the rule doesn't work?

In Jesus,
Response #15:   
There are dozens of reasons why something might be in the accusative case (depending on how any particular grammar classifies the actual linguistic uses: formal grammars describe language, they don't dictate it).

The participles are accusative masculine and they agree with the understood subject which in this is case is both "people generally" who do what is described starting in verse four . . . and by implication "YOU" recipients of the letter to the Hebrews.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:  
Hello Bob,

Got it. I asked only because i read that that was the rule for a circumstantial participle in a “absolute construction subtype”, perhaps this is not an absolute construction?

As I studied more on how this works in Greek I realized that a participle cant be the main verb, so the infinitive “renew again” is the main verb.

That said, since a “circumstantial participle” modifies a noun, and an infinitive verb acts as a noun, does that mean that “renew again” is the noun?

Also, since a present participle happens in time coinciding with the main verb “renew again”, and “renew again” is already modified by the aorist participle “fall away”, does that mean that the participle “crucifying afresh” also has to occur during “fall away” even though “fall away” seems to be a separate clause from the main verb?

And if not what is the relationship of the 2 participles in relation to the infinitive?

I hope these questions arent annoying, I'm happy to have someone to ask.

In Jesus,
Response #16:  
The accusative absolute is not terribly uncommon in Classical Greek, but it doesn't occur in the New Testament. 

The main verb in Hebrews 6:4-6 is an understood "is" (estin) coupled with "impossible" (adynaton). As with many languages, Greek has supplementary infinitives, so that the standard translation "impossible to renew" is exactly parallel in English and Greek.

Re: "a “circumstantial participle” modifies a noun". That is not their function, but circ. ptcps. always have some substantive in mind, expressed or not expressed. Example, "being brilliant" in English would only betray its attribution by being next to the person/persons or thing that "is brilliant" (i.e., "Fred, being brilliant, got a perfect score" – it's only the position that we understand that it's Fred, not the score, that's brilliant), but in Greek we have case, gender and number so that there is never any doubt about the attribution, and that is why Greek can use these sorts of participial phrases EVERYWHERE (though they are rare in English).

Re: "an infinitive verb acts as a noun". Infinitives ARE verbal nouns but they do not "act as nouns"; they act as infinitives, mostly just as in English (in the NT; in Classical Greek there are some different usages, but that would not apply here in any case).

Re: "what is the relationship of the 2 participles in relation to the infinitive?" The aorist one lays the predicate, the present one gives the continuing circumstances. In other words, "If X has happened (aor. ptcp.), it is impossible for Y to happen (inf.), while Z is still happening (pres. ptcp.). The translation makes this clear:
(4) For, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, and who have experienced the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, (5) and who have experienced that the Word of God is good, and [who have experienced] miracles foreshadowing the age to come, (6) it is impossible to restore them to [true] repentance after having fallen away [into sin] as long as they keep crucifying the Son of God afresh and exposing Him to open shame. 
Hebrews 6:4-6
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:  
Hello Bob,

Thanks for the Greek lesson, and the patience. One last question:

Re: "what is the relationship of the 2 participles in relation to the infinitive?" The aorist one lays the predicate, the present one gives the continuing circumstances. In other words, "If X has happened (aor. ptcp.), it is impossible for Y to happen (inf.), while Z is still happening (pres. ptcp.)."

Being that X and Z both modify the main verb being participles, can Z be grammatically simultaneously with X, or do these have to be grammatically separate in function?

In other words, can participle Z (which modifies the main verb) modify main verb+participle X or main verb+participle X+infinitive as a whole?

Yet in other words, can the present part. give the circumstances of the aorist part.?

In Jesus,
Response #17:   
Re: "can the present part. give the circumstances of the aorist part?" Each circumstantial participle "colors" the main predicate to which it is attached. Thus both of these participles provide circumstantial information to the "It is impossible to renew", not to each other separately. When, is it impossible to renew? IF 1) falling backwards has already happen; and 2) WHILE they are STILL "crucifying Christ anew". 

In other words, these believers were out of line. Their wrong behavior had set them on a slippery slope putting them out of fellowship with God (aorist ptcp.), and there would be no getting back into His good graces . . . unless they FIRST stopped engaging in their horribly wrong conduct which they were still perpetrating (present ptcp.). 

That certainly makes sense. You can't confess to the Lord your drunkenness while you in the process of taking another swig and have the intention of continuing . . . not and expect to be taken seriously.

This passage is now covered in full at the link: Hebrews Chapter Six: Verses Four through Eight

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:  
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift."
Matthew 5:21-24 NIV
I'm not bring up reconciliation again, just using this as an example when asking about the Law and the spirit of the Law.

Jesus points out that the spirit of the Law Thou shalt not kill, is not to allow anger to fester and hateful outbursts.

He gives in his response "But I say....." a negative whoever is angry....etc and a positive "...be reconciled"

Given Jesus explained the spirit of the command not to kill, can Jesus to go and be reconciled also spiritualized depending on the situation.

For example, you want to apologise to X but you suspect that to do so would result in a negative response, the person may hate you, or swear or something else, use the police for the wrong reasons. So, could it be argued the spirit of the command to be reconciled, would not to do that if it would have the opposite results, and how can we be sure our judgement even after prayer and discernment would be correct?

Happy New Year

God Bless
Response #18:  
When our Lord says "leave your gift at the altar", clearly, there is no longer any altar and there are no longer any sacrifices (gifts) being placed at any altar. Therefore that part of His words certainly have to be understood to apply to us today in a not completely literal way. I would take that part to mean something like "don't be singing hymns in church if you have unfinished business of a spiritual nature which is more important". If that unfinished business is something you should have done for a fellow believer but have not yet done, then accomplishing the unfinished business is more important. 

Our Lord's exact words on that score at Matthew 5:23-24 are general in any case, so of course we do have apply spiritual discernment. Example A: twenty five years ago I didn't say hello to someone I passed in the street; application: forget that , let it go, confess it to the Lord if you think sin was involved. Example B: two weeks ago a fellow Christian loaned me $500 so I could pay my utility bill and not freeze to death, doing so on the understanding that I would pay him back after payday which was two days away, but I still haven't done it; application: you should pay up ASAP. 

In my view, it's all very much a question 1) what we are talking about in terms of debt (i.e., the thing your "brother has against you"); 2) who we are talking about; 3) when it happened; 4) all other pertinent circumstances. The principle is pretty clear, but the application of it cannot be reduced to a calculus. Each Christian is responsible to the Lord as to how he/she carries it out in any given situation. 

*The main point our Lord is making with these two verses is not even about reconciliation but instead it is about avoiding hypocrisy; that is, thinking that going through the motions of religious ritual is more important than acting in a godly and righteous way. So this passage is all about avoiding legalism and instead being genuinely righteous instead of outwardly righteous. So we really need to avoid submitting this passage to rule-making since that is exactly the opposite of what our Lord is telling us to do here.

As to the other passage where our Lord equates anger with murder, I understand this in a similar way to that above. That is to say, it's all well and good not to murder, but if a person is harboring murder in his/her heart then they are not clean and pure before God just because they haven't actually physically murdered someone (yet). Again, this has to be understood in the context of the legalism of the time wherein the Pharisees in particular were all about outward appearances, appearing righteous, while inside they were like the insides of whitewashed tombs, filled with all manner of uncleanness. That is hypocrisy which is the handmaiden of legalism.

In terms of your last question, I would certainly agree that we need to used discernment in applying commands such as the one to be reconciled because there are many "moving parts" both in the original situation and in any attempts to reconcile – and doing anything ungodly or anything that will not produce peace in fact (which is the whole objective of any reconciliation) should be avoided at all costs.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:  
Professor, 

I have a couple questions on John 3 if you don't mind. 

I've read on the site that you view Nicodemus as trying to flatter Jesus in v.2. I totally agree with that. 

One of my questions is, do you think Nicodemus is trying to play stupid in v.4, because the question itself is rather dumb. I'm just not sure exactly why he'd play dumb. Maybe he's embarrassed that Jesus basically put him down in v.3 and so he asks a stupid question out of desperation?

Further, could you also explain v.5-7, especially in the context of why Nicodemus asked that question. Like, why does He respond to the question with "you must be born of water and Spirit...to enter the KOG"?

Also, do you view John 4:46-54 to be a positive or negative example of faith? Jesus clearly is not happy with the man (v.48), but then it says that the man and his household believed (v.53). Jesus doesn't exactly give him what he wants when he heals the child without seeing him, but the officer believes the statement. What do you think?

Thanks a lot
Response #19:   
On "playing stupid", I wouldn't put it that way. The sort of argumentation Nicodemus engages in with our Lord was typical and remains typical of Talmudic analysis, so I think Nicodemus was responding as many a Yeshiva student might even today. Also, the word translated "again" is the Greek anothen and equally means "from above" as well as "again". This conversation may well have taken place in Greek (since that was the lingua franca of the time); if so, the ambiguity of also meaning "from above" (i.e., through divine agency) might have been lost on him. Because, after all, being "born again" is only possible because we are born through God's agency, the agency of the Holy Spirit – just as our Lord says in context: "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (Jn.3:8; see the link).

On why our Lord answers as He answers, our Lord frequently answered what needed to be said rather than giving direct answers which specifically matched the questions asked. Nicodemus needed to know how to be born again/from above, how to be saved. There was no spiritual point in our Lord playing this debating game with him, so He cuts right to the chase, so to speak.

As to faith or no faith in the John 4 narrative, I think you have it right. What we have is not an example of "great faith" but "sufficient faith" for our Lord to respond as He did for this man. For a very similar situation see the pericope of the healing of the boy at Matt.17:14–21; Mk.9:14-29; Luke 9:37–42 .

Wishing you a very merry Christmas, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:  
Professor, 

Okay, I have a couple more questions actually.

"Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true."
John 5:25-32 NIV

In 5:25, do you think the "dead" refers to the physically dead or spiritually dead (but alive), or both? The "and now is" in the verse makes it seems like it's regeneration (so spiritual rebirth) at present, but the "an hour is coming" seems to refer to the resurrection, especially because v.27 talks about judgment. 

With v.28, Jesus is expecting a reaction from the Jews, that could be along the lines of, "what will happen to those that didn't know about the Son (Abraham, David, etc.)?" perhaps? Or maybe that's not really a reasonable implied reaction.

In 5:31-32, do you take Jesus' first statement to be affirming that He Himself can't testify to Himself, or do you think he's acknowledging what the Jews are probably thinking in that moment: kinda like, "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true (in your eyes)"?

Thanks a lot

Merry Christmas!
Response #20:  
On John 5:25, the "now is" bit is NOT part of scripture (it's an interpolation). Our Lord is talking about the resurrection – which, of course, will take place at different times for the saved and unsaved, but all in the future for both. Clearly then, physical death is what is solved by resurrection, but spiritual life – or death – is what determines which resurrection a person will be a part of. This is all explained in more detail later by our Lord in vv.28-29. The reaction desired is saving faith as a response to these truths.

On John 5:31ff., our Lord is refuting the claim of the Pharisees et al. that He is not to be believed because His testimony is not true; that might be the case, our Lord's words imply, IF it were only Him talking. As it is, the Father has testified on His behalf through the unprecedented miracles our Lord was given to perform (and also occasionally audibly: Jn.12:29). And John likewise testified that Jesus was the Messiah (and John was held as a prophet by all, even by these unbelievers if only to avoid giving offense).

Merry Christmas and a happy 2023, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #21:  
Professor,

Okay, let me clarify a little bit. If "and now is" isn't in the text, then the "dead" in v.25 must refer to physically dead believers, correct? Also, it probably doesn't refer to then alive unbelievers who convert, because the "hour is coming"? That would seem to contradict the implication in the previous verse that the time to believe Jesus is now, not at a coming hour. 

With v.31, I think I understand. But could you take it to be "If I testify of Myself, [you wouldn't regard my testimony as legitimate]"? Maybe that's why he referenced the Father and John? That would make sense, because later on he could basically be saying, "Even if I am testifying about Myself, My testimony is true [nonetheless]" (8:14).

Also, sorry, one more question. In 12:12-16, how exactly do His followers know and think that his moment to establish Himself as king had come, especially considering His disciples did not understand (v.16)? Why wouldn't they have done this the previous two (or three?) times he was in Jerusalem? Do you think there is sort of an apotheosis here with His many miracles and having just raised Lazarus from the dead? Maybe his followers are picking up more and more about who Jesus is as time continues?

Actually, I do think that it's maybe a climax after Lazarus' resurrection, as v.17 suggests that a lot of His followers testified about His raising Lazarus from the dead. Aside from the disciples lack of faith, do you think that this passage shows that this following did indeed believe He was the Messiah, or would you still say that there was superficial or lacking faith?
Let me know about this

Thanks for your responses.
Response #21:   
1) John 5:25 is referring to the resurrection but from a foreshortened perspective which blends all echelons of the resurrection into one just as Daniel 12:2 does (this is typical of prophecy; see the link). In other words, our Lord is saying that all will be resurrected in the future, but not all will enter into life, only believers. So this applies to all humanity, those already deceased at that point, those currently alive, and those not born yet. It's a universal principle: there is a resurrection of the spiritually living and the spiritually dead. Better by far to be part of that "first resurrection" (Rev.20:5-6). We happen to know from the further information given by the Spirit to the apostles later on that the first resurrection has three phases: "Christ, the firstfruits [accomplished]; then, when he comes, those who belong to him [the Church]; Then the end will come [millennial believers; followed by the resurrection of all the spiritually dead]" (1Cor.15:23-24).

2) That is the way I understand it (if I'm understanding you correctly).

3) This was, of course, not the moment for the establishment of the kingdom – that will only happen at the second advent. But the majority of contemporary Jews wanted the crown of the Messiah without the cross. They didn't accept the necessity of the Messiah to die for the sins of the world, having turned a blind eye to the truth and being interested only instead in what they wanted God to do for them (not what they needed God to do for them). Cf.:
The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this ‘Son of Man'?”
John 12:34 NIV
I don't see much evidence of "learning" . . . not much even from the twelve at this point (only eleven of whom were believers). The gospel of John in particular does make it clear that the two exceptional miracles of raising Lazarus and opening the eyes of the man blind from birth were catalysts both of the crowd's enthusiastic reception of our Lord and the coming to a head of the opposition against Him from the rulers. And, after all, this same crowd would be calling for His crucifixion a few days later.

So whatever they thought, their faith, if any existed, was shallow – like the seed planted on the rock that perishes with the first hot rays of the sun.

Wishing you a blessed 2023, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #22:  
Hello!

Thank you for the speedy response. How are you doing? 

The past months have been a shift as I'm learning more how the Lord doesn't need me to self-engineer martyrdom. I need to trust Him, seek Him and His truth, believe it, and apply it. 

I believe a misunderstanding on my part that complicated matters is " if it's sin to you, it's sin"; it's one thing if I, for example, believe (albeit wrongly) the Lord says we can't wear the color blue in His Word so I think it's a sin. It's another to know it doesn't say that or not believe that it does, but to just "feel" or "decide" it's wrong. That just seems a personal preference, though I don't know [yet] how to assert this Biblically. 

Thank you so much for your ministry. It's exciting to come out from under limiting legalistic beliefs. 
Response #22:  
It does my heart good to hear you making progress here, my friend!

In terms of James 4:17, "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" (NKJV), rightly understood, this is essentially what the Lord had also said:

"And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
Luke 12:47-48 NKJV

In other words, James 4:17 doesn't mean "if you're not sure, then it's sin"; not at all. It means, "if you didn't know it was wrong, you have an excuse that mitigates the punishment, but if you DID know and did it anyway, then the Lord takes that into account in disciplining you". And of course we hasten to add that Jesus is our Advocate when we sin (1Jn.2:1-2), our High Priest to whom we can always go and receive forgiveness when we confess whatever we may have done (1Jn.1:9).

If you're thinking of Romans 14:23, that passage actually says something different, namely, that we need to act in faith and not do things we do not have the faith to do because of immaturity. So all this is really a mandate to grow and trust the Lord – exactly as you are doing. 

By the way, if you haven't already seen it, I just posted the second installation of the Hebrews series:  Hebrews chapter one  [chapter seven now available at the link].
In Jesus,

Bob L.http://ichthys.com/