Question #1: In Deut. 7:9, God says he will curse those that curse Israel. Our Bible study leader was talking about curses. Is there any web site I could go to and find information that would refer to denying Israel and the Jewish people and correlate things happening in America and around the world to that? I hope I made sense of what I was needing.
Response #1: I can't refer you to any other websites on this subject. There is an excellent booklet on the perils of anti-Semitism written by my old pastor, Col. Thieme (he dedicated it Dr. Charles L. Feinberg, of Dallas and Talbot seminaries fame). The web address for the info on that is http://www.rbthieme.org/anti-sem.htm, but I think you have to actually order it (i.e., not available on-line). In any case, I'll do my best to address your question here (please feel free to write back if I "miss the mark" here).
I believe that the verse you may be referring to is in Genesis:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be
Genesis 12:3 KJV
There is unquestionably cursing that comes to those who are involved in anti-Semitism, and scripture (not to mention history) is replete with examples that fulfill the principle (please see the link: anti-Semitism); the Assyrian empire, the Babylonian empire, and Haman in the book of Esther come to mind as examples of both. However, applying this principle to contemporary history requires some careful distinction on two points; 1) who is "true Israel"?, and 2) what is truly "anti-Semitism"? All of Abraham's descendants are Jewish, and it seems clear to me from scripture that unjustified, hostile behavior towards them is going to provoke the reaction from God promised in Genesis 12:3. That includes individuals and the state of Israel collectively. However, it is as Paul points out the case that he is truly a Jew who is one inwardly (Rom.2:28-29), that is, Abraham was a believers, so that those who are heirs of Abraham and the promises made to him have to share in his faith (Rom.4:12). This doesn't mean that it's "open season" on unbelieving Jews (far from it, as the Nazis discovered to their very great surprise), but it does mean that God makes a very large distinction between faith and lack of faith, and that we would be misguided not to do the same. That point has its prime application in how we are to evaluate and treat the state of Israel. For believers who follow the best course of action to stay out of politics of any type or stripe (please see the links: Political Action versus Biblical Christianity and War, History, and Politics), the issue will doubtless seldom come up in the first place.
However, there is a trend abroad in contemporary evangelicalism towards supporting "Israel right or wrong", and that would be the one place where I personally would steer clear. For it is one thing to point out how nations who have sought to destroy her have instead suffered grievously themselves, but it is quite another to engage in lobbying efforts with our own government or in other overt political activities with the intent of aiding the secular nation of Israel. This may not be immoral, it may not even be an objectively "bad thing", it may even be by some limited definition a "good thing", but I can assure you that it is very unlikely to come from God as the "mission" He truly has in mind for any particular believer (and it is certainly not "anti-Semitic" to prudently refrain from such behavior). We are here on earth to grow up spiritually and to help other Christians do the same, and we have been given particular spiritual gifts and specific ministries to do so (whenever we express a willingness to respond, that is). Getting involved in a political process of any kind is inevitably counter-productive to a Christian's spiritual life, regardless of how much "fun" it may seem to be, and all the more so to the extent that anything of a political nature has the tendency to take on the aspect of a "crusade" where Christian groups are concerned.
Yours in the One who died for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Thank you for your e-mail. Yes, my question was answered. What I was looking for is like when earthquakes happen, floods, etc. some feel it is directed to how a country has responded to Israel. And Gen. was the verse. Thanks I will reread your e-mail and allow God to speak through it to me.
I have no doubt that everything happens for a reason. Interpreting the reason is the difficult part. I think it is fair to draw the conclusion, for example, that the horrific defeat and devastation which landed on Nazi Germany had a lot to do with their attempt to exterminate the Jewish people.
In Jesus our dear Lord,
How Many Tribes do the Jews of Today Represent?
Thank you for your e-mail. In the article you referenced ("How many tribes do the Jews of today represent?"), you supply two "points of view": 1) "They're lost and will some day be reunited with Judah"; 2) "They're lost, intermarried and were absorbed into surrounding nations and races. They'll never return".
There is of course a third point of view, namely, that sufficient numbers of individuals from these "lost tribes" survived both within the southern kingdom and in the rump of the northern kingdom to make the notion of their tribes being completely "lost" incorrect. There is really no other way, in my view, to understand passages such as 1Chron.9:2; 2Chron.10:17; 11:13-17; 15:9; 34:1-33; cf. Luke 2:36. Please note: these are not only "Jewish sources", but biblical ones. God raised the entire Jewish race from one man, Abraham, and there are instances in the history of the Jewish people where certain tribes were seriously depleted and yet rebounded in population to take their full place in the Jewish state (e.g., the case of Benjamin in Judges 20-21). It is also well to consider that the origins of the Jewish diaspora are ancient and may well pre-date, at least originally, the destruction of the northern kingdom; cf. the widespread Jewish populations not only throughout the Mediterranean, but the continued existence of Jewish populations in Iran and, until relatively recently, in Iraq and in other disparate parts of the world from very early times (e.g., Yemen, India, China). It would be hard to prove that none of these colonies were composed in any part of so-called "lost tribes" members. As an aside, the notion that Sparta has anything to do with the "lost tribes" is a very sad departure from seriousness as anyone who has made even a peripheral study of ancient Greece will recognize immediately.
Finally, given the very clear sense of John's description of the 144,000 in Revelation chapter seven, I believe that it would have been "news to him" and to his 1st century readers that literal Jews from literal tribes of Israel were not being described; elsewhere in Revelation allegories are very clearly indicated to be such and there are no such indications of allegorizing in the context of Revelation chapter seven.
It may seem impossible to many people that from such a disjointed past it will be possible to assemble these individuals from discrete tribes or even to know how to determine who belongs to which. But nothing is impossible for God, and God knows all things. We possess sufficient information from scripture and also from the historical record to be able to dismiss doubts based upon arguments of historical implausibility. That is what all good Bible-believing Christians must do with other areas of Bible truth which have undergone secular assault (as in the case of the Noah's ark and the great flood, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah and the great fish, the seven day re-creating of the world, the standing still of the sun at Gibeah, etc., etc.). However, even if we lacked these other scriptural and historical indications which demonstrate very clearly how it is that Revelation seven could be literally true, we should still stick with scripture any way. The only real questions we Christians who trust the Lord need ask are 1) what does the Lord want me to believe?; and 2) where does it show me in the Bible that this is true?
In our Lord Jesus,
First, that's for responding to my email & article. Secondly, you wrote: you supply two "points of view": 1) "They're lost and will some day be reunited with Judah"; 2) "They're lost, intermarried and were absorbed into surrounding nations and races. They'll never return".
I was trying to point out what Jewish scholarship has to say on the issue. I wasn't presenting "two points of view." from my perspective I was presenting two points of view held within Jewish circles.
Third, you wrote: Finally, given the very clear sense of John's description of the 144,000 in Revelation chapter seven, I believe that it would have been "news to him" and to his 1st century readers that literal Jews from literal tribes of Israel were not being described; I think here you misunderstood what I wrote. In the Bible only 3 tribes were referred to as Jews: Judah, Benjamin & Levi. The rest of the tribes were Israelites and never referred to as Jews. They're all "literal" in Rev 7 and I never tried to imply otherwise.
Thanks for responding. Thank you also for clearing up the point about the 144,000 being literally Israelites in your opinion (or "Jewish" as I would say; see below). As to the two points of view; yes, I did see that. However, when you later criticize those who believe "Jews represent all 12 tribes" for holding to "an erroneous Christian doctrine" by noting that they "never quote Jewish sources to prove their point", that certainly seemed to me to imply that one of these two "Jewish source" points of view was to be preferred. My apologies if I misunderstood.
On the words "Jewish" and "Israel", I would take some issue with both of your statements, "In the Bible only 3 tribes were referred to as Jews: Judah, Benjamin & Levi. The rest of the tribes were Israelites and never referred to as Jews." The problem for me with the first part is that in my reading of scripture no tribes are referred to as "Jews"; that is to say, I am not aware of any scriptures which equate the words "Jew" or "Jewish" with any specific tribe, so that your implication here that by "Jew/Jewish" the Bible means "members of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi" is in my view not capable of being substantiated by scriptural reference. That is an important distinction for this discussion as the second part of your statement shows. For when you say that the other tribes were "never referred to as Jews", it implies that the former were, when in fact neither the majority nor minority group of tribes can be ruled out by the use of the words Jew/Jewish since the words Jew/Jewish as used in the Bible are generic and not tribe specific – that is the biblical usage. And that is really the key point here. If one takes the words Jew/Jewish and runs through a concordance of the NT with that hypothesis in mind, the meaning will fit perfectly most of the time. However, if one applies the suggested "three tribe" hypothesis, most of the uses make little sense at all.
Simply put, there were always "Israelites" from all tribes in the southern kingdom before and after the Babylonian captivity. Because the land under Rome was called "Judea", the people living there came to be called by the generic term "Jews", and by extension this term becomes general by the time of the New Testament for any Israelite regardless of tribe. The term itself says nothing about tribal origin. In Luke 2:36 we hear about "Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher" living in Jerusalem. Are we to understand that this is extremely unusual? If so, where did she come from – the last of her tribe? Are we to understand that she is not "Jewish" though she lives in Jerusalem, speaks the language, and spends her days in the temple? It seems far better to accept the testimony of scripture related in the previous e-mail and understand all of the tribes being genetically represented in the province of Judea as well as in the Jewish communities of the diaspora, whether or not individuals were always capable of ascertaining their original tribal lineage. In any case, writers of scripture were certain of their existence and location, mixed together in Jewish communities throughout the Greco-Roman world:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:
James 1:1 NIV
I watched the movie "Passion of the Christ." Although many believe it was more evil than good, it still moved me to tears; I didn't see any harm in watching it once, perhaps I was wrong. However, this was years ago, when it first came out. At any rate, as Christ is about to be taken into custody, his disciples fight for his life, they draw their swords and one had his ear cut off in the movie, Jesus healed it. My first question is, did the disciples actually draw their swords, ready to kill to protect Jesus? Secondly, how many examples are there in the Bible of Jesus healing serious wounds? I can only say that had I been fortunate enough to have been a disciple, I don't know that I could have had the control they had, that is, anger would have gotten the better of me! I know Jesus would not have wanted them to kill his captors. Lastly, what exactly happened to Judas? Judas betrayed Jesus by taking some gold in exchange for Jesus' location. In the movie, Judas tries to give the gold back, but the men wouldn't take it. It seems like he knew what he did was wrong, and he felt terrible about it. Then the movie may have gone a bit overboard as Judas is chased out to the countryside, being attacked by demonic children! He eventually hangs himself, I imagine he was cast into hell, or was he? Part of me thinks that Jesus would have forgiven him, but maybe it was all part of a plan?
I think if the Holy Spirit is in you, music will (can) certainly move you, but being a Christian is much more than just music! I grew up listening to the kind of rock and roll that literally spoke of devil worshiping and the musicians themselves were usually involved in some form of Satanism, Led Zeppelin was a perfect example. Out of the 4 band members, 2 were heavily involved with Aleister Crowley, who was perhaps, the leader of the "do what you want" movement. Of course, he died a long time ago but many musicians and guys like Timothy Leary followed his twisted teachings and spread them through music and poetry. The problem was, I didn't know this until years later! About 3 months after I started listening to Zeppelin, my mind became more "open" and I began to use drugs pretty heavily. If I look back now, it's almost as if my soul was finally filled, after a bad childhood. However, that feeling you get from music and drugs does not last, and eventually, it turns on you. That's where Satan can completely take over your soul, I don't think most people ever really recover if they get down as deep as I was. I think dark music like that must involve some pretty powerful demonic forces, I have no doubt about that. Another thing I am absolutely certain of is that Christ has power over any demon and even Satan. It's easy for the Holy Spirit to get rid of these demons for you, but it's not easy for a human being to stay away from demonic things, it's the hardest challenge I've ever faced and without Jesus Christ, there is no way out. Without Christ, I would surely be dead or in prison, there is no doubt in my mind. I am continuing to read a little bit of your website on a daily basis and believe that Jesus has blessed you in many ways, your writing skills are very good and even if one is not a Christian, he/she would be hard pressed to stop reading, it's excellent work, thanks!!
Thanks for your testimony – it certainly speaks to the power of our Lord to overcome any and all opposition – all that is needed is the smallest bit of will on the part of the lost sheep. The Gadarene demoniac who was possessed by a legion of demons was not able to speak or do much at all outside of the power of the demons, but he was able to make himself run to Jesus and throw himself at His feet – and even that mustard-seed size bit of free-will-faith was enough to save him. Whether we are straight-laced to a "t" or whether we have fallen into serious behavioral problems, it is still all about faith, the exercise of our free will in response to Jesus Christ. And it always will be. Even as believers, we still face a day to day struggle to "capture the high-ground" of our own thinking and emotions. For only after we begin to control through the power of the Spirit what we think and feel can we begin to live as Jesus wants us to live, growing in grace through the Word of truth, preparing to minister and then helping others to do likewise.
As to the movie, I am on record as a "stay away"; I do not condemn other people for watching it. I recently finished a very long study on Christology, much of which is taken up with "the Life of Christ". I have spent a good deal of my life forming a biblically based mental picture of our Lord and His teachings based upon what the scripture says. But images are powerful. I have seen plenty of movies in my life (too many, I am sure), and I find it amazing how these images can stick with you (like snappy tunes you can't get out of your head, even if only ever heard them on the grocery store "muzak"), and come back into your thinking when you let down your guard. That is bad enough for something that is clearly trash or nonsense or just unimportant. What I did not want was to have my careful discerned picture of my Lord influenced or altered in any way by someone/group of people who know nothing about the Bible and may not even be saved. The pre-release hoopla made it clear that the movie was filled with all sorts of errors, deliberate and accidental. But even had that not been the case, a dramatic presentation of necessity is going to present things in a way that is not scriptural if only by "filling in the blanks". Art is mimesis, a representation of reality that by definition is not reality. So the movie couldn't help but be wrong, and I didn't want my thinking influenced in any way in this most crucial respect. I know that I would have been better off if I had applied this rule to many other things many other times in my life. I don't think seeing it is some kind of sin or fatal flaw, however. If it was helpful to you, that is terrific.
As to your questions, scripture records that Peter pulled out a sword and sliced off the ear of the high-priest's servant, Malchus. No other such action is recorded, and since Jesus immediately reprimanded Peter and had only the one wound to heal, that was unquestionably the extent of it. Peter was the most emotional and expressive of the lot, and it does not seem that the others followed his (abortive) lead. I can't think of any other case in which Jesus healed as a result of immediate trauma that occurred in His presence. Scripture certainly does not rule that out. Paul healed the boy who fell out the window while he was preaching at Troas, but I don't know of any similar circumstance recorded in the case of our Lord's ministry.
As to Judas, no "demonic children" in the gospels (both of these questions indicate examples of the way a drama has to "fill in" any story; makes for good cinematography but it's not biblical). Scripture does record that Judas wanted to return the money and that when the religious leaders who had given it to him refused to accept it back, he threw it into the temple (and they then used it to buy the potter's field to bury the indigent, thus fulfilling Zechariah 11:13). Then he hanged himself. Judas clearly regretted what he had done. That does not save a person. It takes believing in Jesus, His divinity and His work in dying for our sins, accepting Him and His sacrifice by faith, in order to be saved. If Judas had believed, he wouldn't have betrayed Christ (1Cor.2:8). Nothing changed after the crucifixion except that Judas felt sorry for his betrayal. There are plenty of unbelievers out there who do awful things and truly do feel sorry for them after the fact. That doesn't save them. Judas is in hell because of his refusal to come to Christ to be saved, just like many saintly people who have done wonderful things in this life are in hell for the same reason. If you scratch the surface of the "sorry" and the "saintly" unbeliever, you will find in each case an arrogant disregard for God and His authority, and a complete unwillingness to accept Jesus and His sacrifice. Everyone who goes to hell does so by choice and contrary to God's wishes.
Thanks so much for your encouraging words! They are greatly appreciated.
In the One who died that we might be saved through His blood, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
With the Jewish people, what is going to happen to them? When you read God's Word, by our mouth we confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. We receive Salvation through Jesus Christ. I also realize that some day all knees will bow and all will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. What I read from God's Word is there only one way to Salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. So if a person does not except Christ as their Savior whether a Jewish person or any one else of any race, or religion . . . So how do you feel the question could be answered to where a person does not judge another persons salvation, yet by their fruits they shall be know. Thank you
I agree with you 100%: salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who He is and what He has done for us, accepting Him and His work, and living a life of faith thereafter. You cannot be saved without accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior. Most of our Lord's contemporaries rejected Him, but of course not all did. All of the apostles and all of the writers of scripture were Jewish, and the Church itself is built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles with our Lord Jesus being the corner stone (Eph.2:20). Throughout the first generation of the Church, Jewish believers played a disproportionately large role. And while the percentage of Jews in the present day true Church militant is small, yet in every generation there have been those who have indeed accepted Christ as their Savior. We live in the time of "hardness in part" for Israel, as Paul tells us (Rom.11:25), but during the end times this will change starting with the 144,000 who will lead a major revival of Jews back to the Lord. And while the majority of Israel will still refuse Jesus, at His second advent return, most unbelieving Jews will repent and accept Him when they see the sign of the cross and the glory of the "One whom they have pierced" (Matt.24:30; Zech.12:10; Rev.1:7), and "thus shall all Israel be saved" (Rom.11:26). As I have written in another place, scripture gives indications that in fact the percentage of faithful during the Millennium will be reversed from what it is today, and the situation will be such that it will be uncommon to find a Jew who is not a believer (but not uncommon among the gentiles). Please have a look at the following links for more information on this topic, and do please feel free to write me back about any of this:
The Two Witnesses (i.e., Moses and Elijah's tribulational ministry of restoration to Israel)
The Repentance of Israel [at the Second Advent]
The Jewish Ceremonial Calendar (for proportionality et al.)
Anti-semitism: Satan's attack on the line of Christ
The Uniqueness of Israel
In our Lord Jesus,
Dear Bob ,
I enjoy regularly reading your web site and I have a question I hope you can help me with. In 1st Corinthians Paul cites the Law. As I understand this the Law refers to the Old testament Jewish Law which we are freed from by Christ. Why is there this discrepancy?
1st Corinthians 14:34: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
I should first note that as you are certainly aware Paul (and not only Paul) often quotes and cites the Old Testament, and not just in this passage. Now the phrase "the Law" is often used to refer to the first five books of the Bible as opposed to "the Prophets" which often refers to the rest of the Old Testament in New Testament usage (although of course the common Jewish practice is to further subdivide the other books into another category called khethubiym, or "the Writings").
One passage that may help explain what is going on here is 1st Timothy 5:18 where Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 to demonstrate the need for congregations to provide financial support for their pastors. He introduces the quote by saying "for the scripture says". Clearly, therefore, the entire Old Testament was in Paul's spirit-filled view still "scripture", the Word of God, and still spiritually useful, despite the fact that "Christ is the end of the Law for all who believe" (Rom.10:4). Furthermore, he also tells us that "all scripture [clearly including the OT] is God-breathed" (2Tim.3:16), and, in commenting upon another OT passage he is using for support (this time Ps.69:9), that "everything written in the past was written for instruction in order that through perseverance [in reading it] and encouragement which the [clearly OT] scriptures provide we might have hope" (Rom.15:4). So the Old Testament is still the Word of God in spite of the fact that we are no longer under the shadows of the Law. What that means, in my opinion, is that everything in the Bible is true, and that furthermore everything in it which is prescriptive and proscriptive is still valid except in the case of the rituals which foreshadowed Jesus Christ – for they have now been replaced by the reality of Him. We see this principle reinforced for example in the case of the ten commandments which are very clearly a part of the Mosaic Law (being an essential synopsis of it in many ways). All of these commandments are repeated in one form or another in the New Testament with the exception of the fourth commandment, Sabbath observance. That is because this is the sole commandment which has true meaning in its restrictive sense only as a part of the ritual observance which the Mosaic Law entails. Believers today, as the book of Hebrews points out, have a moment to moment Sabbath rest as we abide in Jesus Christ (see especially Hebrews chapter four).
To make a long story short, the Law is thus still valid, if it is "employed in a lawful/proper fashion" (1Tim.1:8). The principles of truth it contains are, as a part of God's Word, not only valid, good, and intrinsically true, but are inevitably found also in the gospels and the epistles (i.e., it can take some searching, but it is hard to find a single doctrine, principle, or basic truth taught in the OT that is not repeated in some fashion in the NT, at least when properly understood).
Your question is a particularly good one because it falls into that gray area where one has to carefully distinguish between what is shadow-ritual, and what is prescriptive/proscriptive truth. In 1st Corinthians 14:33-35, I think the OT passage that Paul has in mind is most likely Numbers 30:6-16 where a wife cannot make a verbal vow or obligation without her husband's consent. Clearly, this is not an exact parallel, but consider what Paul actually says in 1st Corinthians 14:33-35: "as also the Law says". In other words, Paul is giving this command under apostolic authority penning inspired scripture through the inspirational ministry of the Spirit. Thus, even without this phrase, this prohibition would stand on its own (i.e., the Law is only an "also" here). Calling in the authority of the Law does have the added purpose and benefit of saying to the Corinthian congregation "what I am commanding you here is nothing out of the ordinary since it is well precedented in the Old Testament". And what precisely is precedented, since the parallel is inexact (vowing in any case is out now out of bounds as part of the dissolution of the rituals of the Law: Matt.5:33-37; Jas.5:12), is not the regulation of communal worship so much as it is the need for women to respect their husbands' authority, a principle which goes back to Genesis 3:16 and is ubiquitous in both Testaments.
To sum up, what Paul is saying with the use of this phrase is, essentially, "and besides, this principle of wifely subordination, the essential principle involved in this discussion, is well precedented in the Old Testament – I'm not just coming up with it now for the first time". This helps to explain what follows when Paul tells these women to "ask their husbands at home". Since what we have here is a general principle of godly behavior (which predates the giving of the Law to Moses, even though it is found throughout the first five books commonly known as "the Law; cf. Gen.3:16), this quotation does not, in my view, violate the general rule that the ritual observances of the Law which foreshadowed Christ now come in the flesh have indeed been abolished, but that, on the other hand, the timeless truths of scripture remain valid for Paul and for us today.
I'm glad to hear you are finding this ministry helpful, and I hope that this answer gets to the nub of your question – but please feel free to write me back about any of this.
In our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God who is the only truth.
If Christ died on a Friday then he did not fulfill all things in the laws of Moses as he claimed See below:
The time specific testimony in Exodus 16 identifies two seventh day Sabbaths in the second month of the same year the Israelites left Egypt. By using the testimony given in Exodus 16, One simply needs to align that testimony on Jewish calendar charts in accordance with the lunar cycle and the Jewish method for counting days. One can then go back to the month prior to see what day the Original Passover Lamb was slain. See examples given at the link. A calendar year for 1998 and 2009 are used to portray the possibility of the Original Passover Lamb being slain on a Friday VS Wednesday: http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/First%20Passover%20of%20Exodus%20occured%20on%20Wednesday.pdf
All the Historical and Prophetic information needed to illustrate that Jesus fulfilled completely the time specific elements of the Original Passover Lamb can be found at this next link: http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf
Hope you enjoy this objective examination into Christian history.
If Christ died on Wednesday, then He was in the grave more than three days and three nights. This may seem a small problem to our cultural perspective, but in biblical literature it would represent a clear violation of the prophecy of "three days". See for example the point that scripture makes about the two witnesses being dead "three and a half days" (Rev.11:9; Rev.11:11). And Christ would have been in the grave even longer by this calculation, i.e., short of four days and nights by only six hours or so, and four entire nights in the grave. That cannot be reconciled with His words on the subject.
As to the argument in the link provided, leaving aside the many other difficulties with specifics that are assumed to be the case here (to which I would not necessarily subscribe), the time of the slaying of the Passover lamb does not need to be duplicated in order "to fulfill the Law of Moses", since Christ is not a literal lamb. By this logic, Christ's literal blood would have to have been shed to accomplish our salvation, whereas we know in fact that the phrase "the blood of Christ" is a metaphor, referring to the judgment of all sin in His body on the cross while He was still alive (see the link: in BB 4A, "The Blood of Christ") – and Jesus did not bleed to death as the lamb does (He gave up His own spirit once salvation had been accomplished). The Law is indeed filled with shadows looking forward to the reality of the Messiah and His work. Trying to take them overly literally, as in the case just mentioned, risks misinterpreting the truth to which they were meant to point (thus defeating their entire purpose). Moreover, misunderstanding the true nature of Christ's sacrifice has been the cause of much heresy and has undermined the faith of many, and that is the main danger I see in this sort of reinterpretation of the events of passion week.
To that end, I admit to a certain curiosity which in this instance I feel is sanctified. Why the great interest in this particular point? Granted, everything in the Bible is tremendously important, and we should wish to get to the truth of every single issue and doctrine. However, of all the points and passages in scripture, why "evangelize" on this one, sending out unsolicited emails to do so? For, clearly, this is not a question on your part but a statement. As I say, were it not for the fact that the implications of false applications of the Law were so potentially deadly, the particular day of the week would not necessarily be much of an issue for me personally. That said, we have plenty of biblical evidence to support the fact that (in this instance, anyway), the traditional Friday date is correct. Please see the following links:
The Three Days
Thursday versus Friday Crucifixion
The Festival of First-Fruits (in SR 5)
In Name of the One who died for us, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I covered the in three days vs after three days on pages 19, 29, and 30. In your bible you have conflicting prophecy. Both of these verses record the same moment in Christ's life. One is true prophecy (words that proceeded from the mouth of God) and one is false bias recording of a Roman scribe. One is good seed sown by Christ and one is bad seed sown in the night by Christ's enemy.
Mark 8:31 KJV
And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected of the elders and of the chief priests and scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Matthew 16:21 KJV
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
On page 28 I give evidence that validates the Ancient origins of a monastery Gospel. Page 29 illustrates that testimony tampering did occur to the written texts we have today. The study that I shared with you does more than just prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Christ died on Wednesday but illustrates Why a Thursday or Friday death is not possible since Jesus claimed to fulfill all things in the laws of Moses. I'm assuming you wrote back to me without testing the evidence. I hope you will re-consider reviewing it carefully. It's a long study because I cover the topic in more detail than anyone to date and tried to be as objective as possible by proving the Thursday, and Friday theory. They just fell short of illustrating the complete fulfillment of exodus 12 as well as 3 days and 3 nights. It's up to you if you review what I am sharing. I know the topic has been beat into the dirt for many years and usually rejected due to lack of evidence. Well overwhelming evidence can now be seen from OT/NT and many ancient historical writings.
Well, I'm all about evidence. So I have to say that your claim that one of the gospels is the "false bias recording of a Roman scribe" disposes me to doubt anything you may have based upon such an assumption. The evidence for the Greek texts of both Matthew and Mark is profound and deep – and has nothing to do with Rome. I am aware of absolutely no "ancient historical writings" that predate the earliest witnesses to their texts which would compromise or cast doubt on their validity in any way (in fact, as a Classicist who deals with ancient texts all the time, I am not aware of the existence of anything of the kind). If you wish to proceed with this discussion, we would have to clarify our positions on scripture first. I have found in numerous such encounters that it is impossible to discourse productively about the Bible with anyone who doubts its inspired nature (in whole or in part).
This evidence for submission is based on the Exodus 16 time line shared. The power point has a new page 3 based on the presentation found in the attached word document which I prepared last night to illustrate how the bible changes over time with every new version yet God's word does not change. God's word is truth. I hope this helps in understanding why I made the claims I made and why the word of God (spirit of truth) must be used as a light to the world. In the second attachment I illustrate the first two verses of Exodus 16 from multiple bible versions. Many are unaware that only half the truth is presented for these two verses and because of that, translations of Exodus 16: 1-2 can differ greatly between bible versions to hide that the 15th day of the second month is a seventh day Sabbath. Numbers 33 contains the missing information that would have allowed for more accurate translational perception. You'll see what I mean if take a short time to examine the evidence shared. The biggest problem with our world today is human perception. Many perceive the bible to be the word of God when in reality the bible is an attempt to record the Word of God. The Word of God is a voice of truth that speaks solid truth which was received in the Past by many prophets. The New covenant is the Word of God within. (baptism of Spirit) IE spiritual rebirth, a direct connection to God.
The Bible is the Word of God. It has not changed since it was originally penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I'm afraid there's nothing for us to discuss until you accept that fundamental truth.
In Jesus who is the Living Word in whom there is no shadow of changing.
Would you please explain the subject passage for me on the third and fourth generation curse?
Thank you so much.
I take it that you are asking here about God's promise to "punish to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me" but to "show mercy to the thousandth generation of those who love Me" (Exodus 20:6). To me this indicates to what degree God's mercy is His preference over His justice. He will certainly punish all who refuse to relent, but wants all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of His Son (Ezek.18:23; Matt.18:14; Jn.12:47; 1Tim.2:4; 2Tim.2:24-26; 2Pet.3:9). This verse in Exodus and similar verses indicate that "cursing by association" lasts to at most to the fourth generation, but "blessing by association" never ends. We can see this, for example, in God's providential care and blessing of the Jewish people (despite their generally hardened unbelief of late) through the blessing by association they have ever received because of Abraham, the friend of God. I would hasten to add that even a person whose immediate ancestors "hated God" would be exempt from the curse if they themselves turned to God through Jesus Christ and became "lovers of God". So this verse is great motivation for all believers to draw closer to the Lord and love Him with all their hearts, serving Him with all their might, for the blessings this brings are not only theirs alone but all their progeny's as well, even if some of them should not choose the same "good part" of living their lives for the Lord. And this verse also shows how singularly without excuse unbelievers will be on the day of judgment, for God's desire to bless them was infinitely greater than His compunction to curse them. He was only limited in doing so by their free will rejection of Him and His mercy in Jesus Christ.
Please do feel free to write back in case I have misinterpreted your question.
In Jesus Christ our Lord,
What I am looking for is how much would it take for our US Army to be supplied today compared to when the Israelites were in the desert 40 years. I hope this makes sense?
This is a tough question to answer since everything depends upon unknown variables as far as contemporary forces are concerned, while, on the other hand, the Israelites were divinely supported. God supplied them miraculously with food (manna; Ex.16; cf. Josh.5:12: it stopped only after they entered Canaan), with water (e.g., the Rock that Moses struck: Ex.17:6ff.) – and their clothing miraculously did not wear out through the entire 40 years (Deut.8:4; 29:5). None of this, of course, would apply to any military organization operating in the desert today.
As far as coming up with some sort of calculation for contemporary military forces, there are many things that would have to be considered:
1) Size of the force: we have never deployed the entirety of our armed forces in one place at one time for obvious reasons. Needless to say, there is a big difference between supplying a brigade of, say, 6K men, and supplying several army corps of well over 100K.
2) Composition of the force: different types of units have different logistical requirements; water is only one part of it; food, ammo, p.o.l., and all the various and sundry things that go into keeping any unit up and running nowadays is a list of items running into the millions. Mechanized and air assets and heavy units will burn large amounts of fuel and supplies even without extensive movement.
3) Conditions: more water is required the hotter it gets; more food the colder it gets; etc. The exact geography and weather conditions would certainly play a large role in the actual logistical needs. Combat requires more of everything to a largely unpredictable degree (the best logisticians always plan to have more of everything on hand than is "likely" to be needed).
4) Tempo of operations: sitting in place in a tent burns less fuel, food, water, ammo, repair parts, etc.; moving increasing the logistical burden; combat tends to burn supplies at an unbelievable high rate (not to mention losses from maneuvering and enemy action).
It is safe to say that not even the richest country in world history could afford to or be capable of supplying a force anywhere near as large as the entire nation of Israel in desert operations for a single year, let alone forty years! That fact is certainly testimony to the power and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hi Dr. Luginbill
In Mark 7:19, are the words "thus He declared all foods clean" in the original Greek? I know that the "thus He" isn't, at least, since they are in italics in my NASB, but the rest of the verse is not. I know someone who says ALL these words are added. I checked our BibleWorks and it is a bit confusing for me. I think they are there, in the Greek, when I put the curser over the Greek words, but it's hard to tell. Most of the English translations have them, except the KJV, but I know that one is based upon later manuscript copies. Thanks for your help.
The Greek text, present in one form or another in all the manuscripts, is katharizon panta ta bromata, which, word for word is katharizon (cleansing) panta (all) ta (the) bromata (foods). The issue is katharizon. Being a circumstantial participle (like "being" in this phrase), it is legitimate and even often necessary to expand it in translation in order to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. In English composition, most teachers will "ding" students for dangling participles like this, but in Greek, the phenomenon is ubiquitous – and not the problem it can be in English because in Greek with case, gender and number it is very easy to tell what the participle modifies. Here, being masculine, nominative, singular, katharizon has to modify the subject (i.e., Jesus) = "'[he was thus] cleansing". It is impossible to translate much Greek without expanding circumstantial participles of this sort; indeed, the Greek reader automatically does this on his/her own. Just saying, "cleansing all foods" is ambiguous to the English reader, especially nowadays since after two or more generations of English teachers who have hammered against the use of such constructions many English readers can't figure them out when they bump into them. There is a famous one in the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary .....". This translation you ask about is a good example of the "creative ambiguity" of the KJV. On the one hand, they let you decide for yourself (good); on the other, they don't really answer some questions which most translations do answer and which are not really even serious issues of interpretation (bad).
Hope this helps!
Hello, I have one more question about Mark 7. Is the phrase "declaring all foods clean" in the original Greek text, in the oldest and best manuscripts? I know there are over 5000 of them, whole or in part, so I was just wondering. Most of the bibles I've looked at, in this verse, have it as in the original text. If something is not, it is italicized, or in brackets. And this phrase is not. My correspondent who thinks this is just a gloss says it is not. And that it is only Mark's opinion. I reminded him that Mark was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and that ALL of scripture is inspired and inerrant. And if it is Mark's opinion, it too was inspired of the Holy Spirit.
This phrase is in all the mss. (I checked several critical editions and they don't list any ms. that doesn't have it – there are a few, less than one percent and poor mss. at that, which spell the participle differently, but not even this variation would change the essential meaning here). No one (no one who knows anything about Greek, at any rate) doubts that this phrase is part of the text. So it can't be a "gloss" – which is by definition an explanation entered by a latter reader or scribe (because if it were a gloss there would almost have to be some indication of this in the form of an omission at least somewhere given a textual tradition that is so expansive and voluminous). As to Mark's "opinion", well I suppose we could prove anything that way. As long as we are willing to dispense with the doctrine of inspiration, then all we need do next is to declare that any passage we personally don't agree with or find uncomfortable for whatever reason is just the writer's opinion and not God's. But if that were the case, then the Bible would have no authority whatsoever – except that with which we chose to endow it in those places we do happen to agree. It's much more efficient and neater (not to mention more honest) just to dispense with the scriptures entirely.