http://ichthys.com/ 
Old Testament Interpretation XXII
Question #1:   
Thanks Doc.

I'm doing well, l going through your writings and email exchanges, they really do keep me informed. Thanks for Hebrews, I will be checking it . You have done a massive work which has kept a lot of us busy even those you never heard from. I know when someone is teaching the language of ichthys though they don't show up but do it behind the scenes, well done!

On a side note, is the language of the book of Job in mentioning the beasts and the starry /constellation arrangements just imagery or real things and creatures are in picture here? Someone was showing me a lot of animals and dragons in a night sky to prove the pictures in the book of Job, and you know what! If you look intently in the sky, those pictures start to show! Very funny. But what is the purpose if true then? Job 9:9. Cults have taken it too far .

Yours in the Lord Jesus.
Response #1:
Good to hear back from you, my friend! And thanks for the update and report – very interesting.

As to the book of Job, it depends what passages you mean. Some constellations are mentioned, but which ones is a question of interpretation. In any case, we still today talk about Ursa Major and Minor without thinking they actually have anything to do with bears; it's just a descriptive name. 

In terms of Leviathan and Behemoth, these represent crocodiles and hippopotamuses respectively; the language is poetic (the book of Job is mostly all poetry rather than prose although it reads like prose in most translations), and poetry makes use of imagery and figures of speech we don't use in prose. Here's one recent post where I explain some of that (at the link). So when Job talks of "smoke from the nostrils", in prose we would say "LIKE smoke", but in poetry there is "poetic license" (compare the description of our Lord by David in Psalm 18:8 ff.). 

To your point, cults take everything too far – and make up whatever else they want to fulfill their diabolical purposes. It goes without saying that there is no basis whatever for astrology (see the link).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Robert,

What are your thoughts on Job? The book seems oddly placed and contains thoughts right from the start that are out of place.

Also the fact that Satan was allowed in among the Holy angels, which is not allowed anywhere else. And that God offers Job up (though he knew he wouldn't fail).

The book seems out of place.
Response #2:
A very important book! One really can't have the proper perspective on Christian suffering without reading and understanding Job.

I'll give you some links below.

In terms of "oddly place", if you mean its order in the English Bible, that is based upon western tradition; in the Hebrew order (also a tradition) it follows Psalms (which follows Malachi). Because of the history of the ordering of the books, what I can say in a nutshell about that is that one can't draw any particularly helpful conclusions from the order.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down."
Revelation 12:10 NIV
As is evident from the passage above and elsewhere in scripture, this statement about the devil's access to the third heaven is not at all unique to Job. That access will not be cut off until the above casting out of heaven takes place in the middle of the Tribulation. God has worked things out this way for a reason, namely, the prosecution of the "appeal" of Satan, so to speak, which human history constitutes (this is all detailed in the Satanic Rebellion series; see also the link: "The Accuser Thrown Down" in CT 4).

As is often the case in reading scripture and, even more to the point, interpreting scripture, the more one does and the deeper one gets, the more such difficulties resolve, and the principle that every word of scripture is important and jibes with every other becomes more and more clear. Yes, God knew that even Job had his breaking point, but he endured faithfully the loss of everything including his health. It was only the false accusations of his "friends" that eventually tripped him up. A good lesson there: we should care what God thinks; not what people say. Job was restored and lauded by the Lord in the end. We are blessed to have this book and if we remember its lessons, we will be less likely to immediately shout, "Why me?!" whenever trouble comes around.
Here are some links:
Land of Uz
Three questions about the book of Job
A problem verse in Job
Heavenly Fire in Job
Interpreting the Book of Job
The Book of Job and Christian Suffering
Authorship of Job
Cause of Job's sufferings
Job: time and place of writing
Leviathan in Job
in BB 7:  "Dates of Composition and Issues of Authorship"
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
Hello Bob,

How are you carrying on this rather glum Sunday? I attended a church forum this morning at 9:00, an informational session about the presence of the Episcopal Church in Palestine. It’s part of a 6-Sunday offering. Then I attended the church service afterwards. 

In my Bible study class, we were focusing on Zephaniah this past Thursday, and there is no question that I am the person least acquainted with the Bible. (Consequently, I think get more out of our sessions than anyone else who attends.) But I was struck by the graphics on the page—the fact that the verses seem to be in poetry—and are more lengthy than in other chapters of the Bible. I asked if there was a poetic form that my English translation was based on, and the leader didn’t know (and he’s quite knowledgeable and helpful usually—he prepares very carefully). So can you enlighten me if I’m reading a translation of verses in poetry? Is there a meter the ‘lines’ are based on? Is there a stanzaic template?) 

My best,
Response #3:
As to Zephaniah, yes, it is poetry, as much (most) of Hebrew prophecy is. Hebrew poetry is different from the Classical Latin and English poetry with which you are familiar in that there is no recognized meter per se. There is a general AB AB or AB BA apposition of meaning and rough equivalence of length of cola, but despite massive efforts to codify this in the 19th century, we just have to accept that it's not as constrained as what we in Classics are familiar with. What is common is the use of different, more expressive and even archaic vocabulary, figures of speech and various other aspects of poetic diction, just as you would find in Latin or Greek. Cf. Zeph.1:8-10:
“On the day of the LORD’s sacrifice
I will punish the officials and the king’s sons
and all those clad in foreign clothes.
“On that day I will punish all who avoid stepping on the threshold,
who fill the temple of their gods with violence and deceit.
“On that day,” declares the LORD, “a cry will go up from the Fish Gate,
wailing from the New Quarter,
and a loud crash from the hills.”
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Hello Dr. Luginbill

___ asked me a question that puzzled me. She had read her German Bible at least 30 times and she asked me this question this morning. In 1 Chronicles 10, in verse 4, it says Saul "fell on his sword" and died. Is this not suicide?

Then in 1 Chronicles 10, verses 13-14, especially in Verse 14, it says: "and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He [God?] killed him".

This seems to be a contradiction, but I know it is not. But can you please explain this.

Thanks always for your superior help, prayers, and support.

Your friend, 
Response #4:
No problem, my friend. Scripture often describes the true motive force behind some act as the cause, even if indirect means are used. Saul only "fell on his sword" because he was in a hopeless situation, a situation for which he was responsible but which God brought about, resulting in his death.

Here's a very similar parallel:
And [David] wrote in the letter, saying, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retreat from him, that he may be struck down and die.” So it was, while Joab besieged the city, that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men. Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab. And some of the people of the servants of David fell; and Uriah the Hittite died also.
2nd Samuel 11:15-17 NKJV
So the Ammonites killed Uriah – but David was responsible.
"Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon."
2nd Samuel 12:9 NKJV
"You killed" and "with the sword of the people of Ammon". So we could say that the Lord killed Saul . . . with his own sword by his own hand.

It is a comfort to know that the Lord knows the exact motives of all and the ultimate responsibility for all acts in this world – as only a perfect Judge could. We will always get justice from Him. Best to stay on the good side of that perfect judgment.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.
1st Corinthians 4:5 NKJV
See the link: in Hebrews chapter 4, "The Judge of our Hearts' Thoughts and Intents"

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
[question about 2nd Samuel materials]
Response #5:
I've never covered 2nd Samuel as a book, but here are some links which might be helpful (and there is more than a better chance that the topics which come up in these chapters might be discussed somewhere at Ichthys):
David as role model for believers today
Chronology of David's reign
David's divine discipline for murdering Uriah
David's time in the wilderness as a Tribulation analogy
David as paradigm for us
Was David son number seven or eight?
David unappreciated by his family in his youth
David's lying
David (in Hebrews chapter 11)
Hope this helps!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Good morning brother. I was in a discussion with a dear friend, and we talked a bit about deception and illusion of satan. What are your thoughts on 1 Samuel 28 and the witch of Endor?

I hope this message finds you well.
Response #6:
Good to hear from you, my friend.

The devil does of course engage in all manner of deceptions, and in the near future these will be so impressive that they would "deceive even the elect – if that were possible (it is not)" (Matt.24:24; Mk.13:22; cf. Rev.13:14:16:14; 19:20). But that was not what was going on at Endor.

Long story short, the appearance of Samuel to Saul at Endor was not a deception – which explains why the medium was so shocked. For the first time in her experience, God actually caused someone – Samuel – to appear. This miracle was specifically to reprove Saul in an exceptional way (such a thing had never happened before and it's never happened since). 

For the details, please have a look at the following links:
Yes, it was Samuel in 1st Samuel 28
Was Saul saved? Samuel and the Witch of Endor

The Witch of Endor and the Spirit of Samuel

Spiritual Warfare II (the witch of Endor) 

Eternal Security and Perseverance (the case of Saul)
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Good morning sir.

A friend and I are going through II Samuel and there is a difference between my (NASB) and his (NKJV) translations. In II Samuel 12:31 and also in the parallel 1 Chronicles 20:3, my version reads as though David either tortures or puts to death the Ammonites from the captured Rabbah, and his reads quite plainly in both verses that they were put to forced labor. My limited research is inconclusive at this time.

Could you please clear this up, if there may be one translation that is more accurate in this account?

Thanks very much,
Response #7:
The key parts of the two verses are virtually identical in the Hebrew with the exception of the main verb which, in the Masoretic text, is sur in 1st Chronicles 20:3 and sum in 2nd Samuel 12:31. In other words, it's the difference of a single letter, whether the correct reading is the verb ending in resh ('r') or samech ('s'). In the old Hebrew script, moreover, these letters can potentially be confused (if the stem of the resh were obscured or smudged it could look like a samech and if there were a smudge or fiber on the samech it could look like a resh). There are other reasons for potential transcription error here too, so I don't think we can make a safe guess based upon the orthography. 

In terms of meaning, this also could go either way. On the one hand, the Israelites were told to completely obliterate the peoples living in Canaan so that a partial elimination of the population of a hostile neighbor might seem likely. So that if it were really "put to work with" rather than "cut with", the sense might have tricked the scribe into seeing it the latter way. On the other hand, it is also possible that if the correct answer were "cut", the one doing the copying might not have thought of things that way and "put [to work]" might have occurred to him as right so that he missed the correct spelling.

The "brick-making" part of the translation in 2nd Samuel 12:31 is another issue (KJV: "and made them pass through the brick-kiln"). This could also go either way if the malbeyn is a place where the executions could have taken place rather than a work place. There is good reason to suppose (in analyzing the form and comparing ancient translations) that "set them to brick-making" rather than, "made them pass through the brick-kiln" is more likely correct. 

However, we may compare what David did do to the Moabites after defeating them:
David also defeated the Moabites. He made them lie down on the ground and measured them off with a length of cord. Every two lengths of them were put to death, and the third length was allowed to live. So the Moabites became subject to David and brought him tribute.
2nd Samuel 2:8 NIV
I am of the opinion that "put to work" with these instruments is the correct reading here, because if David was intent on eliminating some of the population, he would have done so with the sword, most likely, not with "saws, picks and axes". Although it is true that it's hard to see how exactly these tools would have been useful in that particular occupation.

Hope this helps. I'm not prepared to be dogmatic either way. The books of Samuel, I might add, are the mostly "textually challenged" in the entire Old Testament – meaning that they have more issues which are the result of ancient errors in transcription than any other books. We can usually figure them out with confidence. Here what we can say is that David made the Ammonites pay a steep price for their disgracing of his ambassadors and for their calling in of all those Aramaic mercenaries, whether that price including executions or forced labor. And that everything we have in scripture suggests that this penalty was appropriate (whatever it was specifically). 

Good bibliography on this subject: S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew text of the books of Samuel (available on Internet Archive).

Finally, it's good to notice that even in these very few cases where the exact interpretation of a passage of scripture is at issue, 1) the difference is not earthshaking; 2) with proper application of scholarly methodology a good solution can almost always be found; 3) compared to any other text from the ancient world, scripture is the "cleanest" – so that these occasional "problems" really only go a long way toward proving the Bible's essential accuracy.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Thank you. Your point about David likely using the sword if he were to execute the people makes perfect sense. And there is certainly precedent for the Israelites subjecting their neighbors to forced labor. 
Response #8:
Good point about the forced labor, even with the Canaanites who survived within the borders of Israel (Josh.17:13).
Question #9:
Hi Bob,

You know my engineer brain and its pros and cons. Pro: I'm organized, and know (or at least think I know...) where every piece goes and why. Con: organization and categorization can lead to rigidity and inflexibility, and sometimes that is very bad indeed.

I got on this whole kick when having a conversation about the very thing you mention: we only have so much bandwidth to spend, so where best to spend it? Some things are easy (like suggesting someone read from multiple sections at once so as not to get bogged down for weeks in Leviticus and Numbers, say---and also suggesting that folks hit the New Testament harder than historical books in the Old Testament, since we have the full truth now, not only shadows). But past giving the generalities, it really got me thinking as well.

One other point I'd probably mention having now thought a bit more is the idea of seeking out specific guidance from the Bible when it fits. For example, dealing with suffering? Read Job. Feeling anxious? Read Matthew 6. And so on. That sort of thing needn't be avoided in order to rigidly "follow a plan" in procrustean manner.

Nonetheless, habits only become habits by intentionality, and hence the present topic. Having a format and structure "most of the time" helps one do it consistently, and that is the true key, after all.

Question 1)

What I'm trying to get a feel for is why we might want to focus on some books more than others. So, for example, when you mention spending a lot of time on the Psalms and it being important, what is behind that statement in your experience?

I'm not trying to be overly fastidious here, I'm just legitimately curious as to how one goes about deciding such things (even for oneself, personally), since when the point came up for me, aside from the above recommendation towards reading the NT more frequently overall than the OT due to the relatively clearer revelation that we benefit from having after the incarnation, I was not able to particularly clearly articulate further reasons for any preference at all, despite knowing that it is probably wise not to be completely equal in one's attentions. I suppose I also said the NT Epistles are worthy of special focus due to the concentration of teaching that narrative parts of the Bible lack in a relative sense, and agree with that general sort of reasoning as well.

Question 2)

Let's ignore relative ranking and whatnot for a moment. All books of the Bible are important, obviously. But they are important in different ways. With historical narrative, one sort of sees its purpose and utility from the outset. And prophecy too is similar in that regard of its shared characteristic being more immediately evident from the outset, and the utility derived from it.

But what do you think the specific importance of these following books are? What is the telos of them, so to speak---that which makes them individually shine?

2.1) Job
2.2) Psalms
2.3) Proverbs
2.4) Ecclesiastes
2.5) Song of Solomon

I'm not looking for an essay on each or anything, just a clear picture of how these individual books in the Writings section of the Old Testament help contribute to our store of truth in our hearts, and through what means.

I hope you don't mind me going another round on this. I find it very interesting.

Your friend in Christ,
Response #9:
Sounds reasonable.

Why is Psalms important? There is a reason why people who have not committed any other scriptures to memory probably know a psalm or two by heart. There is a reason why the Gideon small handout Bible has the complete NT but of the OT, only the book of Psalms. Psalms is quoted in the NT more than any other OT book for a reason. It has the greatest concentration of inspirational material, prophecy and I would say even doctrinal principles of any other book in the OT, possibly even in the Bible. Also, since it is poetry and prophecy, it is on the one hand exceptionally beautiful, and on the other it is not so easy to understand and interpret. 

The combination of it being such a huge treasury of knowledge and encouragement beautifully expressed while at the same time being difficult to master makes spending more time on it than on other books a "no-brainer" in my book. So re: "For example, dealing with suffering? Read Job. Feeling anxious? Read Matthew 6. And so on." Or read Psalms, for these and almost any other reason you'd be reading the Bible.

On ranking these five, I'd put Psalms first, the other top four on a par, and Song last of the five; it is also beautiful but its doctrinal application is focused on the analogy of Christ and the Church alone (important, but easy enough to understand).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I just have a request on Psalm 82.

The "Name it and Claim it" people claim to be gods; I even heard one say that because God says He is "I Am", so I am also. Blasphemy, if I ever heard it.

They don't understand the real meaning of when God made mankind in His own image and likeness, they take it to an unimaginable level, as they do when they want to deceive the people.

Would you give me an explanation of Psalm 82 verse 6, and any other verses in the Psalm.

Thanks so much,

Blessings to you, and may His grace abound in you.

Your friend,
Response #10:
Our Lord quotes this verse, Psalm 82:6, as well:
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
John 10:34-36 NKJV
The word "God" in Hebrew is usually 'elohiym, which is a plural of the word 'el. It means "mighty one", and the plural, when referring to THE God is usually a plural of majesty (although in Genesis chapter one it is a true plural, distinguished by the 1st person pronoun, "Let Us make man . . ."). 

What makes for "might"? As Jesus tells us above, it is the Word of God, for the Word Himself created everything in an instant with His Word. And all who have received the Word are empowered thereby and to that degree are acting for Him as His representatives, none more so than the Word of God Himself, the Son, Jesus Christ. 

"Mighty men" in scripture are often those who are leaders or rulers and that is the case in Psalm 82. Here the rulers are ruling as God's surrogates and regents on the earth – for all authority comes from Him (Rom.13:1ff.). And as such they are given instructions by Him here on how to rule correctly. But if they refuse, they will "die as mere men" (Ps.82:7). 

There is no greater power than the truth, and all who respond to the truth and live and act by that truth, whether as rulers operating under the truth of natural revelation or believers walking according the deeper truth that is only revealed by the Spirit, are "mighty" in that regard.

But there's nothing here to suggest that any human being has any sort of Mormon-esque claim on deity. That dangerous fantasy at best, outright heresy at worst. You are right, this is a new key claim of the dominionist movement as well, I believe. Hard to keep up with all the heresies these days. But if we read our Bibles, access good teaching, listen to and walk by the Spirit, we don't need to.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
Doc, I need to know, what does it mean to "cast your worries on the Lord?" This saying is what's often referred to when people say to "give the fear/trouble to God". The common idea is praying to Him and deciding to trust Him with whatever happens, or that He'll deliver you from the fear of whatever it is, knowing He works out everything for good. I have to ask, is there more to the verse?
Response #11:
This is a quote from Psalm 55:22, and the second half of the verse gives the reason/rational: we don't have to worry about anything . . . [because] "he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous be shaken" (NIV). Peter also quotes this verse and interprets the reason/rational a bit differently: "because he cares for you" (1Pet.5:7 NIV).

Re: "I have to ask, is there more to the verse?" Here's what I say about this in Peter #37 (at the link):
Rather than quote the psalm directly, Peter recalls this famous verse in order to bring to his readers' remembrance the truth that whatever cares and concerns we have in this life, the proper procedure is not to attempt to solve them with purely human efforts, but instead to trust the Lord to solve them for us. David's words of encouragement come in the context of his own life experience when calling to the Lord for help in the midst of serious attacks launched against him by ruthless enemies. Even in such circumstances, as David assures us in the Spirit, the Lord sustains the righteous: if we trust in Him, He will bring us through. The Lord will "never allow" those who belong to Him to be undone by the assaults and machinations of evil men. If only we trust in Him, we will be brought safely through the storm, even if the Lord has to split an entire sea for us to do so. 

Peter makes this blessed assurance even more personal by explaining our Lord Jesus Christ's motivation in saving and delivering those who belong to Him: "He cares" about us. What greater thing can be imagined than that the Lord of the universe, the One who created all things (Jn.1:3; 1:10; 1Cor.8:6), the One who holds together everything by His Word of power (Heb.1:3; cf. Col.1:15-17), is concerned for us and our well being? This is truly blessed to consider – and absolutely critical to remember. It is all too easy for believers in trouble to fall into despair, to imagine that the Lord has forsaken them, forgotten about them, doesn't actually care for them. But the truth is far otherwise. He has never forgotten or forsaken those for whom He died. We belong to Jesus Christ. We are His Body, His Bride, His Church. He always has and He always will "care for us".
"Can a woman forget her nursing child,
And not have compassion on the son of her womb?
Surely they may forget,
Yet I will not forget you."
Isaiah 49:15 NKJV
In our context, this encouraging command, to let go of all our worries and concerns and anxieties, handing them over to Jesus Christ, trusting Him to take care of them in His own perfect way, has a special application to the young men who are becoming impatient. Our Lord is telling them through Peter to be patient and to trust the Lord. Wanting to be put into service for the Lord is just one of many concerns and godly desires believers have in this world. We are all most always waiting on the Lord for something or other, it seems. That is indeed a key part of the Christian life. That is indeed an integral part of the testing we receive, given to us with the loving purpose of building up our faith, helping us to learn to trust our Lord better, strengthening our faith, focusing our hope, and, if we do respond correctly, intensifying our love for Him. This is the "rest of faith" Paul speaks about in Hebrews (Heb.4:1-10). This is the Church Age fulfillment of the fourth commandment, whereby we learn to rest in Him at all times, not just one day a week, recognizing that whatever we do in the Spirit, it is actually the Lord who is "doing it", not us. This is the "perfect" or, more accurately, the "double peace" that is the portion of all believers who learn to trust the Lord in trouble and truly cast our cares and anxieties upon Him in full confidence that He will deliver us (Is.26:3). 

Trusting the Lord, letting Him bear our burdens (Ps.68:19) and take on all our cares and concerns, does not mean, of course, that as we wait we do nothing at all; it means rather that we do everything it is reasonable to do to further the deliverance we seek, even as we have no illusions about the fact that He is the One who is going to bring that deliverance about. In practical terms in our context, these young men should, instead of angling for a position, trust the Lord to open up just the right opportunity at just the right time, even as they continue to prepare for that opportunity with all their might.
(3) And not only this, but let us glory in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces patience, (4) and patience produces proven character, and proven character produces hope – (5) and this hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us.
Romans 5:3-5

(7) Therefore subordinate yourselves to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (8) Get closer to God, and He will get closer to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and sanctify your hearts, you double-minded. (9) Lament and grieve and mourn. Let your laughter turn to grief, and your joy to humiliation. (10) Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.
James 4:4-10
Have a happy Thanksgiving!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Hello Dr. Luginbill--I hope you are okay after Helene came through. 

You wrote this stuff to me almost 6 years ago, about Joseph Smith's execrable Mormon "translation" of Genesis 1. It centered on the word "bereshith". Smith had "berosheit" which you said was wrong, as there is no "o" sound in that word. You wrote that the rest of the "translation" was nonsense not worth going into. But you also wrote:

"Also, there is no textual evidence whatsoever for not having be- here." I am not sure what you meant here, unless you mistyped and meant "re" instead of "be." So, could you please elucidate for me? 

I know what Smith wrote is nonsense, but I would appreciate it, if you would comment on what Smith wrote about Gen. 1:1. Here it is again:

" I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Roch—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

Anyway, I would appreciate you expertise on the way Smith "translated" this. I mean, what about his analysis of what the words mean? 

Thanks and take care. 
Response #12:
Doing well here, thanks!

When S. wrote, "When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head!", he was justifying his mutilation of the text, removing the preposition be- (which for some unknown reason apart from his own ignorance he calls 'baith'). Taking out this preposition, meaning here "in", makes all manner of false translation and interpretation possible (e.g., there is a very great difference between "I am in trouble" and "I am trouble"). 

The "first word" in scripture is actually be-, but it is part of a prepositional phrase with reshith, and together means "first" (or, less accurately since there is no "the", "in the beginning").

So when I say there is no textual evidence for casting out the be- as S. does, it is to affirm that there is no basis for him doing so. There are plenty of "little words" (like "the" and "not") whose excision will make a great deal of difference as is the case here. But there is no basis for doing so – except to fit one's own perverse "theology".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hi--Thanks. So, there is no scriptural copy basis for the "the head of the gods" being in there...correct? 
Response #13:
That's right.

The word reshith, meaning "first" derives from the word rosh, which does means "head", but they are different words. Just because the word "disaster" comes from the word for "star" doesn't mean we can substitute the word "star" for the word "disaster" because we want to. 
And while the world "God" does occur in Genesis 1:1, it's the subject of the sentence and not connected to this prepositional phrase (they are not even placed together which would be necessary for a Hebrew construct / genitive as S. seems to want). 
No one with one semester of BH would fail to recognize this confusion for what it is.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Hello Dr Bob, 

I'm trying to figure out why God told Abraham that his descendants would be afflicted and be aliens four hundred years by (Egypt). 

Gen 15:10-17, when God was confirming His covenant with Abraham, there's a report in English bibles on verse 10 which says, " but/however, Abraham did not cut the birds in two, i.e severing them as he did on animals, Cf Numbers 1:14, does the " not cutting the birds in two" which was not the right procedure of bird offering, bring about Abraham's descendants future suffering in another nation? 

Also in verse 16, " because the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete ( come to the full)??

In short, was the then future affliction of Israel God's own divine plan or it was caused? 

In the mighty name of our savior Jesus Christ, Who sees us through all afflictions,
Response #14:
Good to hear from you, my friend.

The Bible is almost entirely silent on what went on in Egypt between Jacob and his family coming down there and the story of Moses, but there is no indication of anything done wrong by the Israelites to merit four hundred years of affliction there. Sometimes suffering is for cause (as in David's punishment of 14 years of trouble for what he did with Uriah and Bathsheba), but sometimes it is for blessing and God's higher purpose (we may think of Joseph and also Job). The same is true of Christian suffering today. Not every Christian who is suffering is being disciplined. And even in cases of the latter, once we confess, the suffering serves the purpose of blessing.

We can observe that the time period served to produce a very large group of people who were of a magnitude to be able to enter into the land and not be swallowed up by the great numbers of its inhabitants, so this was doubtless part of God's purpose in preparing His special people. Suffering is also a preparation . . . for us today too, if we handle it correctly, trusting the Lord more than anything we see or hear or experience. 

In terms of the sacrifices, I don't see anything therein that has any bearing on the above. All animal sacrifices enjoined by God have to do with foreshadowing the cross. So that we can say that God brought the Israelites through the darkness, providing the light to bring them through, through the coming sacrifice of the cross.

In terms of the Amorites, I would take this as along the lines of the above, that is to say that God was allowing a period of respite for the godless inhabitants of the land before His people would come to dispossess them . . . as in the manner of the respite given to the godless before the flood:
And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Genesis 6:3 NKJV
Our God is a merciful God, after all, who wants "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1Tim.2:4).

We do, however, find this in scripture:
"Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness,
O house of Israel?
You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
And the star of your god Remphan,
Images which you made to worship"
Acts 7:42b-43a [quoting Amos 5:25-27]
This is referencing the behavior of the faithless generation of the exodus during the 40 years following their departure from Egypt – but they must have gotten those pagan practices from somewhere, and assuming that they were involved with them in Egypt is a reasonable assumption. Moses had his hands full with these people for a reason.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Good morning Bob. 

Psalm 51 came to mind this morning. I have memorized a section(v10-13) and pray it often. I know Davids relationship with G-d was of the heart. Nathan rebuked him about Bathsheeba and Uriah, so...psalm 51v11. ..'or take Your Holy Spirit from me...'

Did David have a relationship with G-d as we do (we, because of Jesus)?

As always I hope this message finds you well. 
Response #15:
Salvation in the Old Testament was the same as it is today: putting trust in the Lord and His truth.
And [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
Genesis 15:6 NKJV

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
Romans 4:16 NKJV
Granted, they had less and less clear information about the Messiah before the fact than we do after, but they like we knew they needed to be saved and they like we trusted in God to provide that salvation.

Here's a link on that:  The Gospel before the Cross (in BB 4B)

In terms of the Spirit, He helped to and with the truth any and all who were willing as He does today, but He did not continually indwell all believers, and we know that He did leave Saul (1Sam.16:14). Our Lord Himself explains the difference:
“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
John 14:16-17 NKJV
Much more on all this in BB 5: Pneumatology: the Study of the Holy Spirit

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Good morning Bob.

Thank you for sharing these insights, and the time you take to help all. I'm grateful you are in my life time here. I didn't know until recently that you had also served our country in the military. I thank (as well) you for your service. Your commitments have done for many what cannot be summed up simply.
Gratefully,
Response #16:
Thank you!

Greatly appreciated, my friend.

Happy 11/11 to you too.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Dear Teacher,

How have you recovered so far? Are you still feeling tired? We are praying for you all here.

Thank you very much, Sir, for continuing to persevere in prayers for us. It is always comforting to remember.

[omitted]

I have a question today: Did the snake in the Garden have legs?

I figured that God's curse on Satan may have applied in a literal and physical sense to the snake that he possessed (cursing by association), but why should we suppose that to be the case? I don't recall you talking about this anywhere on the website and I couldn't find it when I did a brief search.

Always praying for you here, Sir

Your student in Jesus,
Response #17:
I'm doing much better. So thanks for those prayers too.

I'm continuing to pray for you all. In terms of jobs, I wouldn't waste any time or energy worrying about the past. Whatever happened, we "are where we are" and it is from that place that we "fight the fight" the Lord has given us to fight today. You have a lot of friends praying for you. I'm confident that the Lord will guide you into just the right path – whatever that path may be. I pray for you on that daily as well, my friend.

Re: your question, I think it's more than likely that it did. If I've never said this, it's because the Bible doesn't say it, but it's a logical thing to suppose. The crawling and the eating dust are literal, and that expresses a situation which must be different from what went before.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

Well, __ had some difficulty with the bronze snake in Numbers 21:9. I tried my best to explain it, as I told her that this was indeed a foreshadow of the death of Jesus on the Cross.

But, she would like to know why this was written like it is?

Looking for your help.

Blessings to you,

P.S. Your teaching on Revelation chapter 1 is so valuable to a believer, and I hope to get an opportunity to teach it to others, and there are many who are not aware nor study this book. 

Magnificent Word that the LORD has given you to write.

It is yet again, so amazing and easy to understand.

I am always amazed while studying your teachings, and I still have many to look into, but I am currently studying the Eschatology of the end times.

Thanks always for your great advice.

Your friend, 
Response #18:
The best commentary on this comes from our Lord:
“No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:13-15 NKJV
Compare this with Genesis 3:15b, "He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel". The pole and the cross are analogous (many have been crucified without a cross, just with a pole), and the serpent, being a punishment for sin in this instance you ask about is thus a clear symbol of sin being atoned for through it being "lifted up" and set upon the Substitute, foreshadowing our Lord's spiritual death on the cross.

Here's something I wrote previously (OT Interp. II at the link):
As to your first question, my understanding of this is that the pole represents the cross and that the serpent represents the collective sin of mankind (which came about originally via the deception of the serpent, really the one possessing him, the "serpent" Satan). So the symbolism would be of God providing a means to be forgiven (looking at the symbol He provides representing having faith in the One He provides and His work – Jesus Christ), and that means His bearing of all sin (represented by the bronze serpent) on the cross (represented by the pole). 

Bronze always speaks of judgment (cf. the brazen altar where the sacrifices were immolated), so that is an additional factor here. So someone who has a fatal problem (representing all human beings who are mortal and sinful and have no way to be saved without God's gracious intervention), looks to God for the solution (viewing the bronze symbol representing faith), and is healed (saved from sin), through responding to and accepting the substitute God has provided (representing Christ being judged for us all and bearing all of the sins of the world).
Thanks for the encouraging words, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
I'm studying the 10 commandments. I have a question. Can you please explain to me about the 9th commandment "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Thank you.
Response #19:
Good to hear from you!

The 9th commandment is a prohibition against giving false testimony in a court of law, lying "under oath" or perjury (as we call it in this country). 

This is an important requirement for any society in order for people to be free to seek God without having that freedom taken away through malicious lying. We see an extreme example of that in the case of Jezebel suborning false testimony against an innocent man in order to illegally appropriate his property (1Ki.21:1-15). 

Along with the 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th commandments, the 9th is part of the set of commandments that require us to act in holiness towards others, respecting their freedom and rights so that they, like we, can be free to seek the Lord without having that freedom seriously infringed upon (Acts 17:26-27).

Here's a link at my website that gives a few more details: "The Ten Commandments"

Please say hello to your mom and dad for me.

In Jesus,

Bob Luginbill
Question #20:
Hi Bob, thank you for your email.

That was really helpful!

I went to your link and I was reading about the Mosaic law. Can you please explain the Mosaic law in simple terms?
Response #20:
You're most welcome.

"Can you please explain the Mosaic law in simple terms?" Hah! I have always had a hard time writing anything short and simple. The same with my teaching. Just ask any of my Greek or Latin students, LOL.

I guess I would say that by the term "Mosaic Law" the first five books of the Bible are usually meant (since Moses wrote them). Generally speaking this term is referring to the rules and regulations those first five books contain, the ten commandments being the essence of the Law for reasons explained at the link. If one really wanted to boil down the Law to its true essentials, one could do no better that what our Lord Jesus Christ tells us:
(35) One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: (36) "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (37) Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' (38) This is the first and greatest commandment. (39) And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 22:35-40 NIV
As to what it all means, I'd have to give you the (very) long version. I'm in the process of writing that up right now, as a matter of fact, as part of chapter seven in the Hebrews series I'm presently working on [now posted at the link: "The Mosaic Law"]. Expect this to show up on the website in another four to six weeks or so.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to answer any of your specific questions.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s., best to your mom and dad too!
Question #21:
Hello professor Luginbill,

How are you doing? How is the future for you?

I was reading that place in Genesis where the Lord told Noah about bringing into the ark the clean and unclean animals. And I am confused on something regarding the classification of clean and unclean (both animals and anything else). Was it the same as in the Mosaic law? Because there is a verse in the NT where it says "touch no unclean thing and I will receive you." And this (last mentioned) verse confused me because it seemed to direct the reader to learn about clean and unclean in the Mosaic law and follow that part of it (confusion for me here). But if it existed in Noah's time...Can you clarify? (Does that make sense? If I am too confusing let me know and I will try to make it more clear and concise).

Well __ and I had Christmas dinner at __. And __ told me that I am like family now. And you must understand, after hearing 10+ people say that and then not actually be your family (choosing not to be) I don't want to pretend to be all happy because they never mean it. And I asked___ about it later. And I told her that you should let your yes be yes and no be no. And she said I was oversensitive (she didn't mean it in a bad way just that with my background...). But the thing is that you really hurt people when they rely on you and you reject them. I do think it is evil to do that to someone. Here let me combine this with one more thing...

I had dinner with a coworker and she of her own accord said that she would help me if something went wrong. Please keep in mind I am not the kind of person to casually ask for money. But thinking someone will be there even if I never have to ask for help, it really helps. But my reaction to her after so many people lying is to not be open and trust. Though I did verbally thank her (and I meant it). But that is why it is evil I think for someone like ___ and everyone else who has done this to me to say that we are family and then reject me (not that __ has rejected me yet, I have not tried)! Because you can really make it so a person is so broken they literally cannot open up and trust.

Am I wrong? I don't know. __ was also honest and told me that she can't say if she would have helped me previously if I had asked and I appreciate the honesty. 

I hate going on and on about the relationships thing. But I never learned how they work. And I am trying to survive. And it seems there is overlap between our Christian duty and relationships, and I just feel stuck trying to figure out the 2 + 2 = 4. But if you are frustrated please ignore it. I think the Lord takes into account that I don't know and adjusts accordingly and I'd hate to burden or wear you out.

Anyway! Herodotus has a good author's voice doesn't he? 

I mean it is interesting in my mind because Xenophon seems to be a very good speaker in his speeches in his writing, and the story is really good, his author's voice doesn't stand out to me like Herodotus' does. I just supposed the speaking ability would translate to that, but then there are good speakers that aren't great writers (not that Xenophon is a bad writer).
Response #21:
On the "clean/unclean", this distinction has to do with blood sacrifice to the Lord, a ritual which predates the Mosaic Law. As early as Abel, believers were sacrificing to the Lord in knowledge of the significance of the ritual; whereas there was also such a thing as an unacceptable sacrifice (like the one Cain presented). We see that after leaving the ark, Noah made offerings from "the clean animals" only (Gen.8:20). As to why these categories exist, that is for symbolic reasons with the clean being acceptable (as Christ was acceptable) and the unclean being unacceptable (as we are unacceptable and so need a Savior).

On relationships, I think you are very wise to be reluctant to trust people. In my experience and observation, very few are worthy of trust, and it can take a long time to be sure of who is and who is not. Also, people are people, and no person is perfect. Blessedly, we have Jesus Christ, and He is absolutely faithful to us, has always been, and could never be otherwise. So the wise thing to do is to cultivate our relationship with Him first and foremost. If He gives us a relationship, we can be sure it is for the good (even though no human relationship can be perfect in this world); but anything we force is going to be problematic.

Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
So we may boldly say:
“The LORD is my helper;
I will not fear.
What can man do to me?”
Hebrews 13:5-6 NKJV

I agree with you about Xenophon: the speeches he gave were brilliant and usually needfully so because his life and success and that of those he was concerned for frequently depended upon them. In that regard they are better than his other prose, I would agree.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s., re: "future", eternally looking good; down here, only God knows.
Question #22:
Yes our relationship with Him is the main thing.

On the clean/unclean: what is Scripture telling us to do in 2 Cor 6:17 ("touch no unclean thing"). Is it expecting us to learn what the Mosaic law considers unclean?

Is the classification of clean/unclean animals the same per the Mosaic law and what Noah understood? (I mean I am supposing it didn't change).

Please take care of yourself.
Response #22:
Paul is doing what we all should do, namely, using the Law in its underlying spiritual sense wherein resides its true and most powerful meaning. In the context of 2nd Corinthians chapter six, Paul is encouraging holiness by separating from worldly influence, unwise associations with unbelievers in particular which were tempting the Corinthians into sin. So the "unclean thing" has nothing to do with food but everything to do with ungodly people and things – from which we should separate regardless of the Law.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #23:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thinking about testing recently - the Bible study group I attend is going through Genesis and we were on the chapter where Abraham is going to sacrifice Isaac. I'll spare you the discussion, but the sentiment was "why does God test us if He knows the outcome?"

I assume the answer is, so we can demonstrate our faithfulness (like Abraham did). And God blessed Abraham because of his faith and willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Trials are to grow our faith and validate our love for God (right?). And to let God show Himself powerful in our lives too.

Then the question was, "would God have given Abraham that test if he was going to fail it?" I think "yes" since God gives people tests and sometimes we do fail them (since we didn't trust God), but then again, it was a picture of Jesus and God was working it all into His plan. So is it a waste of time to even ask that question?

Also, Abraham had much more faith than I do and since God tests us only according to what we can handle, it was totally ok for God to test Abraham in that way and even loving, since God only acts in love. God wouldn't have asked a new believer to pass a test like that.

Oh, and did the Old Testament believers know about the Trinity? Part of me thinks "yes", thinking about Genesis and where God says, "Let Us make mankind in Our Image". And they were waiting for Jesus to come (did they understand that Jesus was going to be an actual man as well as God)? It's hard for me to understand what the Jews did know prior to Christ and what I take for granted about God since I live after Jesus came to this world and died for us.

On another note, I'm struggling with the whole "going to church" thing in the cultural way that we know it, since it's getting hard for me to sit through all the unnecessary. That sounds rude when I say it like that. It's good to be reminded of things and of course, when you read the Bible, that's good. It's just that I can't totally "get on the train" when it comes to all the church activities and I don't want to sit through things that are questionable or the Truth is misrepresented or people are just saying things and I don't know exactly what to accept and what to throw out.

I know these people and I know they are believers that love the Lord. And I know we live in a time of apathy - that's the way it is (I just don't like it and I know we're lacking). It's just that you can only have mutual encouragement in the Lord to the extent that you all know what the Bible actually says. I want to have friends (and I do have them) but I want to all agree and seek the Bible (and not just guess). Not that I am involved in places that are totally off, either....it's just that you need to trust what people (especially pastors) say about the Bible and when you can't, then that isn't good for the people who don't know much about God. I can't say all that I want to say with most people, since they wouldn't understand and/or think I was "messed up". Not that God wants me to say all of it.

The options are: Keep going to church/Bible studies. They aren't "hurting" me and they aren't particularly "helping" me, except when they remind me of something important or when I read Scripture. It's all the other "talking" that's usually pretty basic or even slightly off, etc.

Or stop going to church (as in attending a physical building on Sundays and Wednesdays). I could just get together with the couple people I know, outside of church, and let the rest of the casual relationships just end. Although people might worry about my spiritual state (haha).

I should stop now. :) Thank you for listening. 
Response #23:
Re: "so we can demonstrate our faithfulness". Exactly. And think how many believers over the centuries have been encouraged by Abraham's example. As to the premise of the "why?", one might as well ask why God does anything, why we are here at all, why there needs to be "life": why not just start with heaven? The answer is exactly along the lines of what you see so clearly: we can't be "who we are" without free will, and to have that, there had to be a choice (which explains the entirety of the Satanic rebellion and human history in a nutshell, the "solution" being Jesus Christ).

Re: "according to what we can handle". Exactly.
You have not suffered any testing beyond normal human [experience]. And God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tested beyond your capacity, but, along with the test, He will grant you the way out, so that you can bear up under it.
1st Corinthians 10:13
The Trinity is definitely present in the Old Testament. E.g.,
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness . . . "
Genesis 1:26a NIV
But it was not, it could not, be made crystal clear until the incarnation of our Lord. In the Old Testament, Jesus was always the "face of God", often appearing as THE Angel of God, but until He took on human form in addition to His deity, it was God's will for these truths to be hidden so as to stress and teach the oneness of God in a world where paganism ruled. See the link: The Trinity in the Old Testament (in BB 1).

Re: "It's hard for me to understand what the Jews did know prior to Christ". That is understandable. Just as there are a lot of things we don't know about heaven and eternity, yet we trust the Lord that it will be wonderful in every way, so before the incarnation believers did not have the clear picture that we have today of the Messiah as a man as well as God, as having to suffer as well as being the glorious King (even though they did have much in scripture such as Psalm 22 and Isaiah chapter 53, e.g.).
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
1st Peter 1:10-12 NIV
Re: "I'm struggling with the whole "going to church" thing". When a believer grows to a certain point of maturity, "childish things" become more and more difficult to tolerate. And things which are downright wrong or incorrect become more and more difficult to stomach. So take this as a clear sign of your spiritual growth, namely, not being willing to pretend that things which are not helpful are necessary. 

What you do with that information is between you and the Lord. Many who have gotten to this point through growing via Ichthys or Bible Academy [link] or other such ministries have left off going to places where there is no growth going on. Others have tried to persevere to be good influences. This is something the Lord will solve for you as long as you do continue your upward path. That is the ONE thing to keep in mind. Do not let whatever church drag you down to their level, no matter what.

Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/