Peace to you!
Can you help me out regarding a question on Greek word: ὑπηρέτας
1 Cor 4:1 servant (ὑπηρέτας) from ὑπό (under) and ēressō, "to row" = under rower, assistant rower, subordinate rower:
Leon Morris: a lower class of servant
Barclay: the lower bank of trireme
Is it true that in classic literature, it is not in use for that. In NT: not too distinguish with διάκονος / diakonos / deacon (does not have the meaning of "lower").
Is this statement accurate?
You're correct. In the NT the word hyperetes means "servant" and is a
synonym for diakonos ("deacon"). My sense of it is that hyperetes
tends to be more of an "official" position than diakonos (although there
are examples where that is reversed for both words). But the "naval" aspect of
hyperetes is not present in any of its usages in the NT, and that is
often the case in Classical literature as well; also with the corresponding
verb, "to serve": hypereteo, which has nothing to do with rowing. So one
has to take instances in their context.
How are you doing?
I keep you in my prayers every day.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Thank you very much for your email. I was told th
is not a good
word study method to break down the Greek compound word. Is it true?
Thank you again for remembering me in your prayers every day. It means so much to me. I need it very much.
The etymology of a Greek word may be helpful in illustrating its
meaning, but a word in any language "means what it means" as it is
actually used by those who speak the language in question – and often
original etymologies are overlooked or even entirely forgotten in how we
actually use words. So this practice word study you mention is indeed
often overdone, as I have noticed, especially in Christian circles.
For example, the English word "obnoxious" means "extremely unpleasant". However, it comes from a Latin word spelled almost exactly the same combining "ob" ("against / relating to") and "noxa" ("harm") and comes to mean "guilty" in Latin, and even more often "dependent". But it would be wrong to conclude that if someone calls me "obnoxious" they mean to say that I am guilty of something because I am "responsible for harm" by appealing to the etymology, or even worse "dependent upon them" because that is the way the word was often used in Latin.
I'm happy to keep you on my personal prayer list, my friend!
Wishing you a blessed weekend.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
I have a Bible question. I am going to an adult Sunday school class at my church, and we are reading a book titled The Path, which has excerpts from the Bible (New Revised Standard Version). I prefer King James, but what the hey. We have just finished Chapter 4, and we are in Genesis, and the title of the chapter is “Joseph Had a Dream.” One section supposedly comes from Bible text, and it is the section where the brothers are annoyed with Joseph when he tells them his dream—and it reads as follows: “His brothers said to him, ‘Are you indeed to reign over us? Are you indeed to have dominion over us?’ So they hated him even more because of his dreams and his words.”
My priest has talked about Hebrew and how highly connotative it is—and how many words/synonyms there are (at times) for a single word in English. I would really like to know how the final word (words) might be understood in Hebrew and in Greek. (I’m sorry I don’t have the chapter and verse—it isn’t in the text.) I was talking about this with my priest after our session, and she does not know Hebrew or Greek, but she is also very interested in whatever words might mean (or what suggestions might accompany words) in Hebrew and Greek. I told her, “I know the perfect person to ask.”
So I’m asking.
On the passage, this is Genesis 37:8. I read it over in Hebrew and it's
very straightforward language. The version you quoted is right on the
money. The word "indeed" in both instances is actually the Hebrew idiom
where the verb is essentially doubled by use of the infinitive absolute
added to it. Cf. Genesis 2:17 "dying you shall die" or "thou shalt
surely die" (KJV).
The only other thing of note is that the verb used of his brothers to express that they "hated him even more" is derived from the same root as Joseph's name. His name is from the root yashaph meaning "to increase", and that verb is often used, as it is here, to indicate the increase in some other verbal idea (here "to hate more"). So one could say that his brothers "Josephed to hate Joseph" – at least that is the paronomasia in the Hebrew (doesn't really work in English).
"Surely in a flood of great waters they will not reach him".
The "him" here is the godly one mentioned and the "they" some enemy? Or is it God Who will not be reached in a flood of great waters unless He is sought in a time when He may be found?
The "they" are the waters (which represent disaster), so this refers to the protection of those who put trust in God, kept safe as we are in our trials and troubles: the destruction of the rising waters is kept from us.
On Romans 16:24, NASB says that this verse was not in early manuscripts. Is it a part of the Bible? It does seem like a weird thing to say at that point. From verse twenty five, his closing comments and greetings just seemed redundant with verse twenty four coming just before. Did the interpolation (if it was one) do anything other than spoil the flow of reading there?
NASB 95 is correct: While a fine sentiment, this is a later interpolation and not a part of scripture.
Ephesians 3:18. "...the breadth and length and height and depth..." of what does Paul mean here, Sir?
This is Paul's way of summing up the totality of what may be known and experienced of the love and knowledge of Jesus Christ (Greek leaving out the object as often): that is what he prays for us in the next verse, that we may come "to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God".
"For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."
Could Paul mean here that we are looking forward to perfect freedom from sin in our bodies, that is, resurrection?
Yes, the "hope" is the resurrection at Christ's return (and everything connected thereto). That is what we believers "eagerly await".
"For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh"
This puts me in mind of James's conduct with Paul when the latter came to Jerusalem. Is that a reasonable assessment?
James did not demand circumcision of any of Paul's gentile companions on that occasion (so far as we know); however it is true that the insidious request made of Paul – to which he wrongly acceded – was legalism of this very sort. Incidentally, while Acts 21:18 says that Paul went "to James and the elders", Acts 21:21 does not specifically mention James as the one who made this terrible suggestion; we only have an unidentified third person plural in the verbs going forward. I think we can conclude from this that while James failed to assert his authority here, the impetus was not from him. In this way his conduct is parallel to Paul's, namely, giving way to legalism though not sponsoring it. If either he or Paul had objected on the basis of grace, I feel certain that the other one would have supported him. As it is, we can only wonder.
Galatians 6:16. The "Israel of God" is this new creation or creature, isn't it? And it is the Church, right?
Yes, and it includes all Jewish believers – which is the point that Paul is making here: only Jewish believers are part of the Church, but the Church, gentiles together with Jews, is "the Israel of God", "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph.2:20).
Galatians 6:17. What does Paul mean here by marks?
The word here is stigmata and refers to scars on his back from the many times Paul was scourged in service to the Church of Jesus Christ:
From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one.
2nd Corinthians 11:24 NKJV
What does Paul mean here?
For I have no one like-minded, who will sincerely care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 2:20-21 NKJV
In contrast to those of Paul's companions who had abandoned him and the work of the Lord, this "sincere care" is the proper perspective all Christians should have. There is nothing in this world of any value or true interest to us besides Jesus Christ: Him, His Church, His truth; and if we are truly walking in that way, we are eager for the other side, both because we know how blessed it will be in comparison to the vanity of this world, but also because of the rewards we anticipate.
Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
Psalm 73:25 NIV
For what thanks can we render to God for you, for all the joy with which we rejoice for your sake before our God, night and day praying exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?
1 Thessalonians 3:9-10
Could you explain about completing what is lacking in another's faith?
Paul is anxious to be present with the Thessalonians and to continue to teach them so that they may have all the truth they need: "to make up the deficiencies in the things you need to believe", that is, the truth they still require to grow.
In Psalm 46:3, as to the "mountains" in "though the mountains quake at its swelling pride", are they literal or metaphorical or both? I feel that they are both with the metaphor referring to the powerful among us. Is that a meaningful interpretation?
I take this to mean that no matter what happens in the world – even if we experience things that are dreadfully frightening and unprecedented – we are not to fear because we trust the Lord to deliver us. A good thing to remember on the cusp of the Tribulation (cf. Lk.21:25-26).
Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.
Philippians 4:8 NKJV
These things Paul says we should dwell on are really The Word of Truth, right, Sir? I know that at one time I figured that there are things that are good, noble, true, right etc to think about and I tried to but they didn't always have much, if anything, to do with the Word of Truth. And there was someone who told me during a discussion that this was his rule of thumb for making decisions, if memory serves me right. It seems to me that this is often interpreted to mean that we should occupy our minds with things that are considered of good reputation which may not be necessarily associated with the Bible. Is this true? Or is Paul saying that we should occupy our minds with the Truth?
The truth indeed. The truth distilled in our hearts into principles of truth. This may be Bible verses whose full meaning we understand; it may be principles of truth which are based upon a correct understanding of what the Bible teaches, i.e., "being saved" – even if we don't immediately think of a particular verse.
On Philippians 4:10, it seems to me that "you lacked opportunity" means that Paul required nothing of them even though they were ready and willing to give to him. Is this correct, Sir?
That is the idea. Paul had needs but rarely asked for help – and when he did so it was usually for prayer or for someone else to be helped (e.g., Phoebe, Onesimus, Timothy, etc.). Specifically to this statement, the Philippians were either not aware of Paul's location or his particular needs prior to this (most understandable in the communication situation of the ancient world).
Another question that is unrelated to the previous. Why did God split the Priestly and Kingly offices ever since the fall of Adam. Only to reunify the roles once Jesus Christ has accomplished the work of his Father's will?
An interesting question. Indeed, our Lord is both our King and our High
However, I don't recall Adam ever being said to have either office. True enough, he was given (as were we all) rule over the earth (very greatly reduced by the devil's usurpation); true enough, in Eden, he and Eve communed with the Lord "in the cool of the day". But in my reading of scripture, the Bible seems to me to describe the absolute kingship and singular high-priesthood of the Lord as unique individually as well as collectively. So I'm not sure I would describe things in this way in the first place so as to have (or be able to answer) this question in the second place.
Did you have a Bible verse in mind?
In Jesus Christ our Lord and our God,
Agreed. I did some study on the role of Adam and Eve in Eden. And according to the video series by Inspiring Philosophy who cited scholars who studied the text concluded that the Garden of Eden being the meeting place between heaven and earth was a Temple Garden. And the tasks of Adam and Eve appears to not only be initially reigning over the creation but priestly duties.
We retain somewhat our priestly role even after the fall. As we are unique among creatures that being made in the image of God have "religion" not only being able to commune with God. But that somehow because of our design as a priestly race that we are also able to open portals to the demonic realm with sorcery and turn any object into cursed objects with demonic influence.
Or rather because of our beliefs and the way we do things that such a thing can occur. I came to this conclusion because I came across stories that people using Ouija Boards ended up inviting demonic activity into their lives. Yet when said people did the Ouija Board Blindfolded with the board flipped they got the letters all wrong.
So maybe in such cases its not the object that's accursed but the person that has the demon influences itself necessarily. With the human being the portal of entry.
Objects are otherwise mundane yet with human intervention demonic influence can be allowed to manifest itself in a unique way.
For example even Tarot cards were simply playing cards that was turned into an object of Sorcery by mankind.
Interested in your response
Yours in Christ
Never read anything in the Bible about "portals". I make it a point to stay away
from all such things. Everything I have been able to learn about this issue from
scripture can be found at the following link:
"Satan's Tactical Methodology" in SR 4. You might also see
"Spiritual Warfare VI" (which leads to more links).
Please do not see this as an easy way to do Bible study, by asking you for clarity!
The root word for seed/descendant in Hebrew is "ZERA" 2233 (zar' a'ka/le'zar' aka/ve'zar' aka) and in Greek "Sperma" 4690 references to OT.
My deduction is that Gen 12:3 translates well to Gal 3:14, 17!
How would the abovementioned deduction translate to Gen 26:4?
An interesting observation is also how John 3:16 & Galatians 3:16 fully connects within the two different languages of the OT and the NT, divinely script.
Yours in Christ our Saviour,
The word in Genesis 26:4 is the same. It means "seed" (singular) but can also be
understood as a collective noun. Everyone is blessed in Jesus Christ, THE Seed
of Abraham; and the world is also blessed in his descendants, the Jewish people,
the collective seed of Abraham through whom the Messiah came (Rom.9:5), and to
whom collectively was entrusted the Word of God (Rom.3:2).
Wishing you and yours a blessed 2020!
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Simultaneous appearance of Jesus to 500 or teleporation from place to place?
I am thinking about the omnipresence of God who fills the entire universe. If God is basically personally present everywhere. Is he personally actually interacting with everything at once like for example he is talking to millions of people as if it were a one on one interaction yet it occurs simultaneously.
Or is it more just like surveillance cameras?
So in the scriptures say that Jesus appeared to 500 at once (1 Corinthians 15:6) was it at a single gathering place. Or did Jesus teleport from place to place.
Or was his glorified body capable of interacting with 500 at the same time even though they are at different locations?
God is absolutely omnipresent. Time and space were designed by Him for our
benefit – and they are very small (for want of a better word) compared to Him.
One of the most amazing things about the good news is that God became human – Jesus Christ took on true humanity – without sacrificing His deity. So the report about the 500 is as it says in 1st Corinthians 15:6, "all at one time" (Greek: ephapax, ἐφαπαξ), and that is the important point for Paul in his proving of the resurrection: on one occasion, a great many people saw Him "all at once". Our Lord has a real human body – a perfect, indestructible and resurrected one now, the first-fruits of what we all will have (1Jn.3:2). But like us He has only one. He is seated now – after the ascension – at the Father's right hand, awaiting the time of His second advent.
It is certainly true that the resurrection body is capable of many amazing things, including moving through objects (our Lord entering through closed doors and appearing virtually wherever He wishes); He ascended to the third heaven in this new body, and that would be impossible for anything in the realm of the physical we know of today. So it is most exciting to anticipate our own resurrection when we too shall rise "to meet the Lord in the air" when He returns following the Tribulation (1Thes.4:17). See the link: "The Resurrection of the Lamb's Bride" in CT 5.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Hello--Thanks for your help. I am wondering if you would do me a big
favor and read a few posts on CARM for me, and see if you come to the
same conclusions I have? The link is to the Trinity board. One poster is
Mormon. __ is not, but in my dealings I have had with her over the
years, she sounds like a Christian mystic to me, though she has denied
it. She has claimed to know Biblical Greek and Hebrew and taught at the
university level, but not sure in what. She also claims to know you and
to have disagreed with you when she has written to you.
Some of her writing is so...esoteric, I had to ask a pastor friend of mine on the boards to read what she wrote, to explain her POV. He thinks she is being a Christian mystic, too.
You can see what she wrote and my responses to her. Some of what she writes seems off the wall to me. She thinks it is wrong to use "nature" and "essence" to describe God's Tri-unity and being, because such words were used by pagans to describe pagan concepts...I say, so what? They are perfectly good words that we can use to describe something. Including God. I pointed out that John used "logos" of Jesus Christ, when there was already a long-established pagan Greek concept of the logos as the reason governing the universe, or something similar. But John was a Jew and used the word differently than the pagans did. She says she isn't sure John actually used that word, And she doesn't use IT, either.
And what is the book of Henoch, I think she mentions? Typo for Enoch?
I have never read Augustine, so I have no idea if her assessment of his works is accurate. But I'd bet a cookie you have!
The stuff she wrote about "psyche" really sounds a tad...weird to me, and couched in mysticism. You will notice on the last page she does not deal with a single point I have made. Just says I misunderstood her.
If you don't have time to read it, I will understand. But could you answer these 2 questions?
1. Do all the ancient Greek manuscript copies of John 1:1 have John calling Jesus the "logos" of God?
2. Is there a word for "essence" in Koine Greek, that is different than the Koine one for "nature"?
As always, thanks for your help and God bless you for it.
I've put most things aside in order to launch a major posting at Ichthys (BB
6B: Ecclesiology), so I'm in a bit of a hole; add to that that this is the
first week of classes at U of L, so I am a little too busy to read boards. But
as to your questions:
1) None of my critical editions even has any notes about any ms. or papyrus not reading "logos" at John 1:1; all of the major mss. with which I am familiar have it. No evidence whatsoever for some claim to the contrary therefore.
2) The word for "essence" in ancient Greek is ousia, and it is derived from the participle of the verb to be (so "being" as a noun is what it means); the English word "essence" is derived from the medieval Latin word essentia which is a deliberate Latin duplicate of Greek ousia. The latter only occurs twice in the NT at Luke 15:12-13 and is used for "property", not in a theological sense. "Nature" is another Latin word (natura); the Greek equivalent is physis (from which we get "physics").
"Henoch" is just a different transliteration of Enoch.
Hi--Understood about being busy. I wondered if nature and essence are synonyms in Greek, as they are in English. Thanks and do not work too hard!
In English, Latin and Greek, "essence" and "nature" may have a semantic overlap,
but they are different in that "nature" strongly implies (and in all cases
etymologically means) having to do with the material, physical realm; come to
think of it, that is probably why early theologians avoided that word and
preferred ousia / essentia / essence.
Oh, so it would actually be better to talk about God's essence, instead of nature? Even though Hebrews 1 says how Jesus bears the very stamp of God's nature? Which word is used there in Greek? Last question!
The word in Hebrews is "very stamp of His hypostasis" – that is
where the theological term "hypostatic union" to describe our Lord's
uniqueness comes from (see
You do have a point. In theology we talk the "essence of God" to describe His spiritual characteristics, and we talk about Jesus' two "natures", human and divine. That's a matter of tradition, however.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
I was reading 2 Timothy yesterday and I might be older than Timothy was but I can still be timid like he was. Whether it's in speaking up or knowing that I've only been back with the Lord a couple of years. But even then, Bob I honestly think I've learnt more in that time with your teaching than she has in all the years she's been at that church. And Paul says in 2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (NKJV)
Or in the NASB - For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.
How would you translate it? One is saying "sound mind" and the other "discipline".
I'm encouraged by what the Lord has shown me in His Word this week and I'm excited about continuing to study, believe, apply and prepare for everything He has for me to do. I loved these verses too - 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 4:1-4, 4:7-8.
Thanks for your teaching, Bob and thanks for all your prayers and you're in mine too. Have a great weekend!
Your friend in Jesus
On 2nd Timothy 1:7, the word is a derivative of sophrosyne which
has a storied pedigree in Greek. Paul does use a more abstract form here
but it's essentially the same concept. The classical way of translating
this is "prudence", but that word has picked up negative connotations in
contemporary English. It means etymologically "safe-mindedness" and its
opposite is hybris ('hubris') which means to go beyond the normal
bounds of human restraint (arrogance with a capital "A").
In spiritual terms, sophrosyne means staying away from things that are anywhere close to being "out of bounds", because, as we all know, getting too close to the edge sometimes results in being pulled over. So in terms of a journey up a road with dangers off of both sides, the hybris person would cavalierly tread over the edge with impunity from one side to the other, while the sophrosyne person would stay as close to the middle as possible to avoid either side. In the context, therefore, I think this is added by Paul to remind Timothy that just because we are courageous in the Lord does not mean that we are also stupid enough to allow that courage to put us into harm's way unnecessarily.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Here's another question I am unwilling to wait to ask in my list: did you write
anything about the Millennial Temple, Sir? I have been stuck on Ezekiel 40 since
yesterday and I still don't really understand the design.
1. I'm not sure what verses 6-16 mean.
2. Is the Eastern Gate smaller than the other gates? I ask because of how verse 11 compares to verse 21 and verse 25.
3. Also, verse 14 says that the gate extended round about to the side pillar of the courtyard in NASB. NIV1984 and NKJV say different things there too. What really is going on there?
On Ezekiel, the door of each gate is 10 cubits wide and 13 cubits high.
Verses 21 and 25 are speaking of the porticoes as a whole. That is what
verse 14 is referring to in relation to the east gate.
Visualizing 3-D objects and spaces from written descriptions has always been an Achilles' heel of mine, so I won't try to paint a picture (I'm no artist either!).
James 1:10 (NASB)
10 and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away.
Why should the rich man take pride in his humiliation? Is James basically saying, "rich man enjoy your time while it lasts because once your spirit is required of you" you will be humiliated?
Verse ten can't be understood without verse nine.
(9) Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, (10) but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away.
James 1:9-10 NKJV
Verse nine tells the poor to be happy anyway because we are spiritually rich; verse ten tells the rich not to get excited about their present situation because it is coming to an end. This is the same as what our Lord says in the beatitudes (e.g., compare Lk.6:20 with Lk.6:24). The "problem" is the word "boast/glory", but it doesn't actually occur in verse ten. Greek leaves out verbs where they are to be understood. Forms of the verb "to be" are the most commonly left out, but when that doesn't work, the verb just used prior is the most likely substitute (that is why most translators supply "boast/glory" in verse ten too). However, this is a fairly common figure of speech called a zeugma where two elements are conjoined without the verbs matching; here we don't have the second verb but if pressed we are tempted to supply the previous one but that really doesn't work here. I would prefer to just leave out the verb (as, e.g., NKJV: "but the rich in his humiliation"). If pressed I would translate something such as "let the rich not forget his humiliation": clearly, we can't expect rich people to "feel good" about the fact that their riches mean nothing to God and will soon pass away – but if they are Christians it would be spiritually healthy for them to keep that ever in mind.
James 4:11 (NASB) 11 Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.
How does speaking against a brother or judging a brother make one speak against the law and judge the law? Does this verse have a double application that we should not judge the Scriptures as we read it, rather we should take it in as pure truth?
This is James' way of saying that it is God's business to judge other believers, not yours or mine. This is just what Paul says too (Rom.14:4). James says "the Law" instead of "the Lord" because he is writing to a Jewish congregation who will feel the sting of that rebuke very strongly (whereas gentiles might not).
Proverbs 1:17 (NASB)
Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net in the sight of any bird;
Is God symbolized by the bird in this proverb's context? Because the
wicked are plotting in full sight of God and will receive their
In our great King and Lord,
The point here is that even birds are smart enough to stay away from obvious and visible dangers, but these individuals are doing what will surely bring them down. That is indeed because of the justice of God but also because of the law and order He has put in place. It does show the inherent arrogance and resulting blindness ruling in the hearts of those who reject what is right.
Here's the whole context:
Surely, in vain the net is spread
In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood,
They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain;
It takes away the life of its owners.
Proverbs 1:17-19 NASB
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Dear Dr. Lugenbill,
Could you explain the use of the Greek word for teach in this passage?
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1st Timothy 2:12 NKJV
I've been studying the role of women in the church. It was brought to my
attention by a preacher that there is a Greek word for "teach" that is referring
to ongoing instruction much like that of a rabbi with authority. It was his
opinion that is the case in this passage. Therefore a woman can teach in a mixed
setting in the worship gathering so long as the elders have approved it.
That being said he referenced another Greek word that means to "teach" which does not carry an authoritative, ongoing overtone.
Could you help me clarify these words?
Good to make your acquaintance.
The Greek verb there is didasko, and that is the common Greek word for teaching throughout antiquity. So there is nothing at all special in the word itself, nor anything special about the context which would indicate some sort of special rabbinical exception.
As to the issue of women in the Church, the most recent thing posted at Ichthys is in the newly posted BB 6B: Ecclesiology: "Women in Leadership".
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
It did help, thanks. Unbeliever psychology is a difficult thing to come to grips with.
Genesis 4:23-24 (NASB)
23 Lamech said to his wives,
Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech,
Give heed to my speech,
For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;
24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.
Should we take Lamech's statement as one supported by God -- that
avenging a self-defense killing will be punished seventy fold by the
Lord God. Or was Lamech simply declaring that he had God's support based
on God's promise to Cain?
In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Rather, I think this is recorded for us to show us the depths to which humanity
sank so very quickly after the expulsion from Eden. This is "unbeliever-speak"
all the way. Historical books often record what was said and done by
unbelievers or even believers in the wrong (cf. the book of Job).
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Doing a study of Jonah. went on line and found many sites.
some believe he died and went to hell, then was brought back alive.
others say in the belly he stayed only, and brought back after 3 days.
both have connection to Jesus and the grave 3 days. your insight would
be most helpful. the new link you sent to study of end times is tops.
Thanks for the good words, my friend!
As to your question, scripture says it was the latter. Nothing in the book of Jonah about him going to Hades; but it says very explicitly that God sent a fish which swallowed him then later spit him out.
People often go to great lengths to deny what scripture says literally happened.
Jonah's experience is symbolic of what our Lord experienced. Jonah is a "type of Christ" in this respect (see the link for discussion).
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Hello--I have a question...a Mormon wrote this to me on CARM:
"The Bible never says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and accepted by faith alone to cover our unrighteousness – in other words we do not contribute anything and we are declared righteous. The word imputed means to reckon or account. It never means that something alien to you is transferred to your account."
I know perfectly well what "imputed" means. I showed him like 20 Bible verse that prove that we have Jesus' righteousness because of our faith in Him. But my question is the 'alien" part in this post. He says it never means something "alien" transferred into our account. Yet, I reminded him that our sins were imputed to Jesus on the cross and sin was and is totally alien to Jesus!
Anyway, I am just asking if the word for "impute" in the NT can means something alien transferred to our account. Thanks. Stay healthy.
The whole "imputation doctrine" as connected to "original sin" was invented by
Augustine and has lots of problems – based upon misunderstanding the Greek and
also Paul's argument. In a nutshell, what these passages actually mean is that
God considers those of us who put our trust in Christ "righteous": He sees Jesus
instead of us and we are "righteous" by means of faith, not through having
earned it. The Greek word group logizo means essential "consider [A as
For details if interested, please see the links:
The so-called "imputation of Adam's sin"
A discussion of "imputation"
Let me know if you have a specific passage in mind.
Stay safe and healthy yourself!
Dear Dr. Luginbill,
You are the wisest and most thorough commentator on the Internet and I thank God for your ministry and willingness to answer questions.
I have heard several times that if Adam and Eve had not sinned they would have lived forever. Do you agree and if so is there Scripture to reinforce this idea?
May God bless you on this Palm Sunday. I really am disappointed that we cannot go to church this morning (because of the corona virus) and am resolving never to miss a worship service again.
Yours in Christ,
Thanks for your kind words – I would also recommend to you Curtis Omo at
Bible Academy (at the
As to your question, Adam and Eve were created perfect and had access to the tree of life. Even after acquiring a sin nature at the fall, they still had to be kept from that same tree of life so as not to be able to live forever in their then sinful state. Nothing worse than this state of sin and decay lasting forever!
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22-24 NKJV
Hoping and praying all this insanity ends soon.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Thank you very much.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that God created Adam from this literal dust we use when moulding clay. It seems confusing.
Also, I've been lead to believe that Mr. Wormack is a good teacher of Grace which I thought was good for my progress.
And yes, I've been in contact with our friend.
You're very welcome, my friend.
I'm glad you've been in touch with our friend. He is a very special individual.
One of the roles human beings serve in the plan of God is that of being an answer to the devil. God used a creature who was part material made "lower than the angels" to demonstrate His faithfulness and thus refute all of Satan's lies. This is the gist of the five part "Satanic Rebellion" series (at the link). On the creation of Adam in particular, see the link.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I have been studying this subject teaching, and am on page 12 of 177 pages, and have been blown away by the fact that those who are Calvinists do not understand a doctrine that is very plain. They have this TULIP thing, whatever that means, and don't care to find out, but I do hope that those who teach it will soon discover the truth.
You know all about what they believe, but I would have one question for them: Did God Almighty the All Sovereign One, force Adam and Eve to disobey Him?
This would be the end of the discussion.
We know that God is sovereign and that we will never understand that, but we can certainly determine that God does not, and will not force anyone to accept or reject Jesus Christ His One and Only Son who died for us, even though He is absolutely Sovereign.
This is a most excellent teaching that everyone, especially Calvinists need to study along with everyone else in the world. It has been an eye-opener for me as all your studies are, by the Grace of God that He gives you.
I never did believe what these folks talked and found that out quickly by studying about teaching among many that you have prepared.
Thanks so much, and may God continue to pour out His abundant grace upon you as always.
I don't see how anyone could argue from the Bible that God "forced Adam
and Eve to disobey".
1) He gave them everything they needed to live blessed forever.
2) He gave them very explicit instructions to stay away from the one test of free will – which could only be failed by disobeying Him.
3) He made the issue very clear: death versus life.
4) He never gave them cause for considering anything else to be true.
The fact that Eve chose to believe a lie and the fact that Adam didn't trust the Lord enough to have faith that He could restore Eve (or give him someone better) doesn't in any way even implicate God in anything wrong – let alone FORCING them to "disobey".
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
James 1:13 NKJV
Incidentally, when Eve "quotes" the Lord to the serpent, she says "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die." I have often noted that she wrongly adds "nor shall you touch it" (see in BB 3A), showing that she had not paid enough attention to this most important command – the only negative one they had received, and that this contributed to her vulnerability to accepting the lie. Some things probably had come in contact with that tree and not "exploded", birds or leaves or whatever, but it was the "eating" which was forbidden; seeing some things touch the tree and not suffer any consequences must have induced some doubt that there was any real problem with eating either – just as the serpent represented to her. But it is also the case that in addition to adding something, Eve left something out. God didn't say "You shall not eat it, lest you die." What He said was, " for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen.2:17). The word translated "surely", a mere adverb in English, is in Hebrew the infinitive absolute of the same verb "to die". A better rendering (as Col. Thieme translated it), is "dying thou shalt die!" This is an idiom in Hebrew designed for particular emphasis (which a "surely" doesn't really convey in the same way). Eve clearly did not "process" the emphatic nature of the command . . . as events also proved. Nor, apparently, did Adam.
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."
Deuteronomy 12:32 NKJV
In Jesus our dear Savior,