Biblical Interpretation XVII

Question #1:

Hi Bob,

From my understanding, Israel gets cold in the winter and if there was no room at the inn, that suggests to me it was late in the day. My understanding is that Mary was in labor at that point and the birth came shortly after. If so, it would have been extremely hard on a newborn, I doubt shepherds would have been out watching over their flocks in December except to drop off feed. The flocks would have been closer to shelter. At least that's the way it is down here.

I get no sense of winter from the accounts in the gospels which I think would have been mentioned. I read the link you included in the post -- at, least to the change of subject, and got no indication of a December birth. What convinces you Christ was born in December or winter? Did I not read far enough or not paying close enough attention?

I'm not a big fan of Christmas with pagan trees and a fat red coated Coca-Cola commercial. For me, Christ's living is the real cause for celebration. But then, I'm getting cranky in my old age. Like Easter, also closely timed to a pagan holiday, Christmas a festival for kids.

In out Lord,

Response #1:

From my studies of the issue, a December birthday is probably correct (see the link). While your logic is impeccable, the argument is based upon a mis-impression . . . which flows from the cultural-Christmas milieu as well. Our Lord was not born in a barn. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, but it's not what the scripture says. A "manger" (Gr. phatne) is feed trough. They didn't have a proper crib at the inn so they used the next best thing, a wooden container about the same size and shape of a crib. So this does speak to the humility of our Lord's birth . . . but without the cultural accretion of animals et al. which captures everyone's attention (no doubt one of the reason's the evil one continues to spread this falsehood). Here's a link that goes into more detail: Manger not barn.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Hi Bob,

I don't mean to quibble but my issue is with a December or mid-winter birth. While I accept your teaching about "manger" and accept "no room at the inn", my issue is shepherds out watching over their flocks in mid-winter. I didn't see that justification in the links you included. Central Texas, I believe is closer to the equator than Bethlehem and we've only had a couple nights below freezing this year, but I certainly wouldn't want to be out watching sheep that most likely were hunkered down in whatever shelter they could find. Even the deer here. are huddled down, together when possible, against the cold. I've got one of their beds near the house. Admittedly, I don't know much about the culture of the time except what I read in scripture, but still, it strikes me as improbable that it was mid-winter. Unlike the arrival of the Magi, the shepherds arrive soon after birth. Would the angels have come to them huddled up from the cold?

What I'm looking for is scripture that makes a mid-winter birth probable. I know of none. I always believed that the "bishop of Rome" concocted that date to coincide with pagan beliefs shortly after Nicaea.

I apologize for being a pest.

In Jesus,

Response #2:

You're no pest – and since you are such a reasonable person it's all the more incumbent upon me to try and give you a good answer.

First on the negative: the climate in Bethlehem is Mediterranean. The mean temperature is between 45 and 60 in December (and may have been warmer in antiquity before the deforestation got so bad over the next 2K years). We're not told anything about the weather, and the passage in Luke doesn't say that they didn't have pens for their sheep. The verb agrauleo merely means that the men were not inside. To the best I have been able to discover, Bedouins still pasture sheep in winter in these areas. So while it might be a consideration, it's really not possible to say that the situation described in Luke was impossible if it took place in November/December.

On the positive: as the link explains, Jesus was “about thirty” at the commencement of His public ministry (Lk.3:23). We also know that Christ's public ministry lasted three and a half years, offset one year from that of John's, and that Christ's was completed in the spring (see the link for a comparative chart). That means that it began in the fall . . . which means that "about thirty" is probably employed by Luke because our Lord was very close to being thirty in the fall of 29 A.D. but not quite . . . which means that His birthday was probably in the early winter.

Additionally, the late-in-the year date is one also necessitated by the fact that Joseph and Mary were hastening to get to Bethlehem before the calendar year ran out – the year of registration for tax purposes of the census. Missing the date would be like failing to file before April 15th (only with far worse consequences). No doubt Joseph was hoping that the birth would take place earlier, in time for travel thereafter, but when it became clear that this was not the case, they had to expedite even though Mary had not yet given birth.

Taken on balance, December (or late November) seems the most likely probability since the other scenarios run afoul of the evidence (i.e., if this were Sept. our Lord would have actually been thirty at his baptism or just twenty nine).

This also doesn't mean that the shepherds weren't cold. Sheep-herding is, pastoral poetry to the contrary, a very hardscrabble, difficult and dangerous profession. Which is no doubt one of the reasons why the Lord picked it for David's training.

Happy to discuss further.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Hi Bob,

That was a good answer – and makes sense. Thank you. I still have questions, but about Peleg and the Council of Nicaea. Peleg, I think you addressed before for me, but it's now lost in the dim mists of memory and a couple technological events. I want to do more research, first before I ask so hopefully, I can ask well framed questions.

I should have thought about weather. Unlike the Great Texas Freeze of '21 (in Feb.), this year has been unusually warm. February highs largely in the 60s & 70s and this month, we've been in the upper 70s & 80s. Near the ocean in the south, prevailing winter winds came in from the sea which is generally warmer. While I've not been in Israel, your latest comments made it all click. Thank you. I may have over reacted to Christmas Asherah Trees and overweight Coca-Cola salesmen.

In our Lord,

Response #3:

It's not an accident that Christmas – a "holiday" not in the Bible – has developed along the lines of the Roman Saturnalia. The date the RC church settled on for the former is essentially coincident with the latter. Part of the trend in those days of assimilating Christianity to paganism (as you note).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #4:

I can't seem to let this one go. I thought I understood the nativity story, but I don't know the half of it. Do we know where Mary and Joseph started their journey to Bethlehem? I would imagine it's in scripture but, for me, it's lost in the dim mists of memory. Was it Nazareth? My guess is they could barely make two miles an hour with Mary in near term pregnancy, even riding on a donkey (which would have been difficult all by itself) and then only 8 to 10 hours a day at best. That was one hard trip! At two miles per hour, which is optimistic, they would have been lucky to make 10 or 11 miles in a day with relief stops which, from what I recall, is fairly frequent in late stage pregnancy. If they started from Nazareth, Bethlehem is about 30 km away (19 miles?) making it a two day journey at best.

This is a new dimension I've never considered before. Thank you.

In Jesus, who I suspect had a tough go of the journey, too.

Response #4:

No doubt it was a rough journey, especially as it had to be made at the last minute. They were in Nazareth at the start. The best thing I have on this tying all the evidence together is at the following link: In BB 4A: "The Events Surrounding the Birth of Christ" which includes a graph/map suggesting how these things actually played out.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5:

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the greeting! Hoping and praying all is well with you too! The status quo (health-wise) for us is steady, so that is good news. Family issues are not too encouraging thus far, but still praying for deliverance. God knows and He is faithful and able when/if they desire to change direction. Time will tell.

Goodwill to you in all you are doing for His Church! I appreciate your support and know you are accomplishing much for all of us in the Ichthys family. Prayers are continuing daily for you. Thanks for yours!

Your friend in Jesus,

Response #5:

We'll take "steady" for now . . . and keep praying for "better" in the new year ahead. Keeping up the prayers for your family too, my friend.

Thanks for the good words. Things are always "interesting" on the front lines as you are well aware. But yes, God is good and He never lets us down.

We went through fire and water, but you brought us to a place of abundance.
Psalm 66:12b NIV

Thanks for those prayers on your end too, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #6:

Hello Dr. Luginbill:

Thank you so much for checking in with me. I really appreciate it.

Wow! Bronchitis hit me the first week of November - and I am just now heading in the right direction. It's been a doozy - really bad (we were concerned about pneumonia). It appears my very strong immune system was compromised from radiation treatments on my eye. I started treatment on my eye (three times a week) in October and I will finally be finished by the end of this month. Thank the Lord - and it has been working extremely well. Surgery would have cut my eye into who knows what kind of configuration in order to eradicate the basal cell carcinoma - but by doing my own due diligence I found an alternative with a 99% success cure rate versus 96.5 with MOHS surgery. I will have no surgery, reconstructive surgeries or scars or disfiguration. PTL! In addition, the centers that provide the treatment I am receiving are typically in major cities nationwide, yet here the Lord provided the same treatment 6 miles away in the Texas Hill Country in a small town. The Lord is so good!

Wow have had the most amazing year - no break from insanity, twists, turns, crazy non-stop - and the only thing we have said is that the Lord must consider us worthy - plus He is preparing us for the troubling days to soon come. Honestly, I couldn't even begin to tell you all that has transpired.

Snapshot from January 1, 2024 to today:

9 visits to the hospital from CA and TX to TX for our grandson's premature birth (January to the first week in April - back and forth and back and forth...)
Grandson born with two clubfeet - but praise the Lord his feet look perfect. He still wears his brace 12 hours at night, but he is foot loose and fancy free during his waking hours. He is so adorable, and he literally smiles all the time.
I needed to travel and be gone for 6 weeks (May to mid-June)
Returned to only turn-around and leave on another three week trip with my husband (my nephew's wedding and business endeavors plus personal travels)
When we returned at the end of July, we found that both of my parents had hit the wall. Their health was in severe crisis.
We had to leave our home, remove my parents from their home next door, and move us all into one home in order to care for their health and issues. Our former homes are currently sitting empty. We will make more permanent decisions after the first of the year. The 24/7 care has been exhausting - and we still have to work to boot! We are praising the Lord, though, that we can care for my folks.
Financially, we have taken on the burden of almost __ more a month in order to help my mom and dad (this is a miracle in and of itself). [omitted] We will have them full-time. Huge change for us.
Cancer radiation treatments three times a week for 10 weeks.
Bottom line; I'm exhausted.

But, honestly, none of the above is a complaint. The Lord has been so good to us. We see his new mercies every single day. Praise Him!

How are you and yours doing? We truly hope and pray that you are well.

Wishing you a wonderful day to celebrate the birth of our Savior, our Lord and coming King. Merry Christmas, Dr. Luginbill!

Response #6:

You HAVE been through the wringer!

I've put a prayer request up for your treatments, and I promise to keep this and also your family situation in my prayers.

It's good to hear that although you're exhausted, you are still standing so strong in your faith! That is the definition of passing a tough test.

Also very happy to hear that your grandson is weathering the problem with his feet.

Things are always "interesting" here, but I'm having some good rest over the Christmas break, so that is a real blessing. I hope the same is true for you today and through new year, if possible! Praying (and hoping) for a less eventful 2025 for us all!

Thanks for your good words and your prayers too, my friend.

And Merry Christmas!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7:

Dear Robert
I just wanted to send you my best and most grateful wishes, and to say Happy Christmas, and that you’re in my prayers, for your health and happiness, and strength for the work you do, which is a blessing to so many. And that the Lord blesses you too.
I’m visiting with my family, and out of the blue my peace of mind betrayed me, but I knew where to look for wisdom, and a quick dose of common sense and your explanation of the scriptures, and thank God I am back on an even keel. Thank you! Time marches on, but I’m doing alright. I hope you are too.
I don’t yet know what our new pastor will try to teach (at present he’s majoring on wall building in Nehemiah) but so far no mention of seeking miracles and signs and wonders, as I found him doing on YouTube. You may remember I was concerned about what he might bring. He’s still finding his feet and I’m being patient.
Meanwhile we keep on keeping on.
God bless and keep you

In Christ

Response #7:

Thanks so much for the Christmas greetings and the good report!

No snow here but it does feel a bit "Christmas-y".

How is your health doing? I appreciate your prayers, my friend, and I am keeping you in mine daily.

Wishing you and yours a happy Christmas as well, and a blessed 2025.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8:

Hi Bob,

I hope you're feeling a lot better now. Makes me wonder whether you had covid with feeling so rough and the loss of taste you had as well.

I've been thinking about Abraham today and when the Lord instructed him to take and offer Isaac as a sacrifice. We see the depth of Abraham's faith and obedience and how he passed this ultimate test without any wavering at all. But what struck me as well is how Isaac's faith doesn't seem to get spoken about much. Isaac had to have faith and obedience too. He was bound and placed by his father on the alter and he was willing to die in obedience and submission to his father and to the Lord. Isaac asked Abraham where the sacrifice was and Abraham replied that God would provide for Himself the lamb. Isaac accepted this and had faith that God would provide a sacrifice. The Bible doesn't say anything about there being any questions, or a struggle, or resistance when Isaac was bound up and placed on the alter. Isaac could have fought off Abraham but he had faith in God too and consented to what was happening. Isaac was a man of faith too. Am I seeing this right, Bob?

Thanks for your prayers for me too, Bob. Just tomorrow to go and then the weekend!

In Jesus

Response #8:

I'm coming out of the other side of this, but I have felt chipper before . . . then soon felt like I'd been chucked into the chipper. That's a characteristic of Covid too. I know when my brother had it fairly early on, he thought he'd gotten better and went back to normal activity . . . then SLAM! and he went down for the count for over a week. So I'm being careful. So far I haven't missed any classes or anything else important (though I have dialed things back).

On Isaac, this is really wonderful! I'm sure it's no coincidence that I had just finished this section on Isaac in Hebrews chapter eleven. You're email rates a preview .

Here it is:

Verse Twenty

By faith, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things [destined] to come.
Hebrews 11:20

When his blessing was purloined by Jacob, why was Isaac so furious? Because Isaac had complete confidence that the Lord would bring about that blessing precisely as he pronounced it just as He had said He would.

Isaac trembled violently and said, "Who was it, then, that hunted game and brought it to me? I ate it just before you came and I blessed him – and indeed he will be blessed!"
Genesis 27:3 NIV

Isaac's wrath at being deceived, therefore, merely serves to demonstrate the absolute confidence he had in the Lord and in His Word. A man of lesser faith – or one who did not fear the Lord as Isaac did – might well have just taken back that blessing. But Isaac knew "by faith" that what he was given to say by way of blessing and cursing would come true – because he trusted the Lord that it would. Perhaps Isaac should have known all along that by preferring Esau he was resisting the prophecy that the Lord had made to Rebecca to the effect that "the older (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob)" (Gen.25:33). But in spite of his preference for Esau, once the blessing had left his lips, Isaac was absolutely convinced that Jacob's blessing would stand no matter what. Because he was absolutely sure that God's prophecy which he had been given about his blessing of his sons was rock solid, so that even though he had tried to put Esau whom he preferred over Jacob, he knew "by faith" that God's Word could not be contravened. Isaac had sufficient respect, "fear of God", not to attempt any change once he had given the blessing (Gen.31:42; 31:53).

(7) Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, " where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (8) Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
Genesis 22:7-8 NIV

Finally, in the entire context of the sacrifice on Mt. Moriah, there is not a hint of Isaac being disobedient to his father Abraham in spite of the terrifying situation. Isaac clearly respected his father with an uncommon reverence, one seen also in his grateful acceptance of the life-partner his father secured for him in Rebecca. In God's institution of the family, the father stands in the place of God, having been given God's authority for the discipline and training of children. Those who respect their parents are much more likely to have a similar respect for God and His authority, because if a person does not respect the authority of the parents he can see, how would he/she have respect for a God who is invisible (cf. 1Jn.4:20)? As Isaac had exceptional respect, reverence and godly fear for his earthly father, so also did he fear God (Gen.31:42; 31:53). Once the blessing was a fait accompli, Isaac accepted God's will absolutely without any reservation whatsoever (even though it went against his wish to bless Esau). Isaac feared God as we all should. For that is where true wisdom begins.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:7 NIV

Thanks for the prayers, my friend! Keeping them up for you and yours as well (Covid or no Covid).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9:

Hi Bob,

I'm very pleased you're feeling better than you were. Covid can really floor you so I'm glad you're still being careful to pace yourself. I hope you got through your long Friday OK. Mine was mega busy but I got through it fine.

On Isaac - wow! I don't think it was a coincidence either. I love it when the Lord does that! Thank you so much for the preview as well. It's brilliant and I'm looking forward to reading the whole chapter when it's finished.

Thanks for your prayers Bob - especially while you've been feeling under the weather. Thanks for being such a great example.

Wishing you a restful weekend and keeping you in my prayers too.

In Jesus

Response #9:

Yes, got through. Feeling not so hot tonight. Rain predicted for tomorrow so I'll probably stay in and just focus on posting. Seems everyone is getting sick here. All the local school districts have cancelled classes (just not the unis). One had 2,000 sick students and 200 teachers calling in sick.

I didn't think it was a coincidence either! You could have written what I wrote, since there is plenty of brilliance on both sides of the pond! I'm sure the Spirit is behind all such "brilliance" (1Cor.1:26-31).

Wishing you a good and relaxing weekend, my friend. And thanks for your prayers too.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10:

One last thing I wanted to ask (sorry, I forgot to ask earlier). Not a Bible question (so not all that important), but do we know how Cyrus the Great really died? I heard one theory say that the Nomad Queen Tomyris killed him after he captured and killed her son and husband but is that really true (some say that story is a myth) and can we know anything definitively?

I get Cyrus wasn't a believer (since he didn't acknowledge the Lord) but Scripture does have some good things to say about many of the kind and noble things he did. Yet, it seems like a lot of people (especially the Greeks at that time) hated on him.

Response #10:

Yes, scripture has good things to say about Cyrus, but you are correct that he was not a believer:

"For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me."
Isaiah 45:4 NIV

In terms of his death, the accounts of Ctesias and Herodotus are different. Which one to believe, is hard to say. Herodotus was closer to the event, but Ctesias had "inside sources" in Persia.

Xenophon greatly admired Cyrus. His "Cyropedia" is the first real "novel" in the western tradition.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #11:

Hello Brother Bob

I was going over my lesson about the adulterous woman today. A thought came to mind how often women were accused of adultery in the Old testament also in a new testament why women were accuse of adultery and men were not even when they were committing adultery. I was wondering if you have any studies pertaining to this or researched it?

Thank you

Response #11:

I assume you are speaking about John 7:53 - 8:11? That is NOT part of the Bible. That passage was added to some manuscripts in the middle ages, but is not present in any of the better, more ancient ones (nor do any of the church fathers mention this passage before the 12th century). The exact origin of this interpolation is not known, but the fact that it is one of the most quoted passages by those who are not friendly to the truth overall should tell us something too.

In terms of the New Testament, outside of the gospels – where Jesus says that men are guilty if they are adulterous in their hearts and condemns the divorce of innocent women on the basis of false charges and false motives – I'm not aware of anywhere in Acts of the epistles where we find what you are referencing.

In terms of the Old Testament, I know about the story of Tamar – and she was justified in her conduct by Judah's own words after the fact (see the link: Old Testament Interpretation XIX starting at Q #22). I also know about the "waters of bitterness" in the Law, but we don't have a single instance in scripture telling us of an occasion when this ritual was actually employed. Given that Israel very seldom DID follow the Law in any respect, I think that is significant as well.

Can you give me an example of what you are thinking about in terms of a biblical citation (if I haven't already gotten to it above)? In my reading of scripture, adultery is condemned vigorously – without regard to gender.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #12:

No I wasn't referring to something in the book of Acts. I was wondering how the Jewish law or who established that women are guilty for committing adultery and not men. I know we can't find anything pertaining to this in the Bible but I was wondering if there was any any writings from the Jewish individuals that may establish some kind of law that men were not guilty of committed adultery but only women. I understand how it explained the actions of adultery in the Old testament and the New testament along with the Pauline Epistles. Thank you for your input

Response #12:

Re: "who established that women are guilty for committing adultery and not men". No one, that I know of. Adultery is cheating on your married spouse, whether done by the husband or the wife. That is what the word means wherever it occurs in English, in the Bible or elsewhere. E.g.,

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14 KJV

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10 KJV

Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Deuteronomy 5:18 KJV

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
Proverbs 6:32 KJV

Did you have some passage or incident in mind that led you to think otherwise?

Happy to discuss.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #13:

Hi Bob,

This one is long---apologies. No rush on any of this.

1) What comes out of our mouths, and what is in our hearts

Regarding Question #6 and discussion from this week's posting: "I read through a link you posted titled "Is it ever justifiable to tell a lie (part 2 link)?" and saw how similar that topic was to a discussion I was having with one of our brothers..."

I think I was the mentioned brother in this one (it somewhat rings a bell, but would have been a good while back if so, I think). If memory serves, I had issues with the statement "believers cannot deny Christ with their lips" as a position... as in "anyone who is a believer cannot have those words cross their lips otherwise they are not really a believer." Or something like that.

The Bible speaks in terms of what bad things happen to those who "deny Him [with their lips]" and so on (so it is no place we want to be as a believer), but I think I was very leery of saying that words are necessarily equal to heart belief, as some sort of black and white rule.

It has been a long time so I have no idea if our brother and I talked about this in that same conversation, but I think (?) the idea also came up of whether everyone who "claims Christ" is really a believer. This comes into play when we talk of people pretending to be Christian teachers in order to deceive others.

And, moreover, while I cannot peer into people's hearts, I certainly doubt the salvation of many people who claim to "be Christian" in some way or another (i.e., people not so much blatantly lying to others with their lips---as with the sheep-dressed wolves---as lying to themselves in tragic self-deception). It gets difficult to untangle decidedly quickly when one starts pushing on what "claim Christ" means, exactly. Was Jesus just a nice teacher ("Yeah, we like him---he had some cool ideas about love and acceptance and stuff")? Or maybe He was the divine Son of God after all, but that notwithstanding, we still have to eat our magic wafers blessed by a priest to be saved---receiving God's dispensation of grace every week through "the sacrament of communion," on a schedule---so that the special forgiveness dust might be re-sprinkled upon us... Or...

At any rate, I don't care to parse the specifics of those situations. Rather, I think the position I had was:

Christians can err and "deny Christ with their lips" while still being believers. Like Peter.
Vile unbelievers can talk a good game about Christ all for the intention of deceiving the sheep, yet in truth not believe a word of it. And this can happen with other people too who say they claim Christ, but may instead be following religions of works and the like.

So what matters is what is in people's hearts, and there is none of this "impossibility" business. As in "No person who is a believer would ever be able to say the words of denial" or "No person who is really an unbeliever would ever claim Christ with their lips." I just don't think those statements are true/necessarily hold in a logical sense.

It seemed weird for me to argue that we humans are specially exempt from our words not matching our heart in this one area in particular. Since it seems to me that to hold such a view you'd have to say people could lie about what they think about all manner of things (since people self-evidently can and do), but not what they think of Christ. And I just didn't see why we needed to force things into that, in Procrustean fashion.

What do you think?

2) Making determinations about what people "should do"

It is entirely possible in that conversation that I punted on what someone in a situation like the one mentioned (i.e., someone being asked to denounce their faith to halt the torture of a family member) "should do." In the sense of leaving this between them and God and the leading of the Holy Spirit, in circumstances that are real and not imagined for the sake of example. I think our brother was advocating for something more like "anything less than boldly proclaiming their faith in such circumstances is wrong." I know at any rate that I wasn't nearly as convinced as him about saying that is for sure what ought to be done. (Seems to me like staying silent is another option too... or many other possibilities besides, which would be impossible to know beforehand). Although, to be fair to him, I think I was more open at that time to the idea of "well, what's wrong with saying the words if you don't really change what you believe in your heart?" (I suppose I have changed my mind on that as a possible OK path).

You seem to be falling on the side of denying one's faith in any way is always wrong. But in that, the argument is going more along the lines of "a time is coming when anyone who denies with their lips will necessarily be denying with their hearts (in taking the mark of the beast), so we'd best treat this as a serious mistake even today, whether or not it has anything to do with the salvation of those who are making such statements today."

So not so much that they cannot do it as believers, but that they ought not do it. Is that correct?

(And, I should note, saying that as believers we definitely ought not deny our faith with our lips is different than dictating what exactly people in such hypothetical circumstances ought to do, which is what I think I was pushing back against most. It is instead laying some lines on what they definitely ought not do. And those are two different things).

What do you think?

3) Trusting in God in "impossible" situations, instead of taking things into our own hands

And this brings us to something I've been wishing to ask about for a while.

We had a very good conversation a while back about these situations:

The Jewish midwives lying to Pharaoh
Rahab lying about the Jewish spies
Tamar deceiving Judah and sleeping with him while disguised as a prostitute
Jesus "breaking the Sabbath" (at least I think this came up too in this specific conversation---I might be misremembering and crossing my conversational threads)

In any case, what the conversation was turning on was what exactly application is vis-a-vis principles the Bible teaches, and what exactly "black and white morality" means when we talk about such things as "not lying" and "fleeing from porneia."

Let's start with the lying case. We both agreed that scripture indicates that God clearly commended the midwives and Rahab for their deception. (And what they did was unquestionably deception, per any normal definition of the word---no wriggling out of it). That is beyond all question.

But then we were discussing about what exactly that means with regards to our general "job description" of not lying:

I suggested that in truth what the Bible prohibits is bearing false witness [against our neighbors], which is just a different thing conceptually from lying to our enemies. That would be one way to deal with the apparent contradiction between the command not to lie, and God commending the women for their actions in these two separate cases. (In other words, I was saying the things are apples and oranges, not apples and apples, so to speak).
I'm sure I can't represent his position nearly as well as he did at the time, but I think our brother said something more along the lines that since God is the lawgiver, He is the one who gets to interpret the law (along the lines of Jesus and the Sabbath). So we need not draw up categories about "types of deception" and whatnot and then draw distinctions between them, since what is important is if God calls it problematic or not. (I was never quite clear on what use labels like "lying" were as a concept then---like if you aren't willing to draw distinctions between types of lying, then how do you get out of the prohibition not to do it without lots of hand waving?---but Our brother seemed quite convinced that this line of thinking was the right of it, I believe).

I'm not even sure we were saying different things anyway. Certainly not in principle.

Sort of where I'm going with this is along these lines: when we think of Jesus and the Sabbath, it is clear that the Pharisees thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. But:

1. Was Jesus actually not breaking the Sabbath because the Pharisees had redefined it in a way that was not actually what it was? (Analogy: people getting up in arms about Rahab and the Jewish midwives have made their own legalistic version of what "not lying" is that is actually a false standard). So Jesus broke the "Pharisee's Sabbath" but not "God's Sabbath?" Or...
2. Was Jesus actually breaking God's Sabbath for real... but it's OK since He is Lord of the Sabbath and was in the process of rewriting the rules?

While I can't speak for him, I think Our brother and I would both say (1) not (2).

To move on to Tamar's example, I confess that I've often struggled to understand if God looked favorably upon what Tamar did (i.e., if she "did what she was supposed to, in accordance with God's Will" here, per the first best Will of God). If I remember correctly, I emailed you about this before, a long while back. We know:

Judah not giving her a third husband, in how things worked for women in their time and place, was an immensely cruel sentence of permanent dishonor and shame (particularly in that it deprived her of children). We don't have a great modern equivalent, but basically, the point is that what Judah was doing was horribly wrong.
It is difficult to see what options Tamar had available to her.

But nonetheless, scripture doesn't itself tell us something like "God blessed Tamar for the specific actions she took here---she did right morally speaking." The best we get is:

Judah saying she is more righteous than him (Genesis 38:26). Just because one set of actions is more righteous than another does not mean they are righteous qua righteous though, right?
The fact that Christ comes through her bloodline could be used as indirect evidence that God blessed at least the outcome of all this. But is that really His stamp of approval for how she specifically brought things about by her own hand?

Where I always get stuck is that we know the ends never justify the means for us as Christians. So while we may understand that Tamar had been put between a rock and a hard place---which makes her actions understandable (in the same way that starving people stealing food is understandable)---that doesn't necessarily make them simon-pure. (Not that any of us is ever simon-pure, but you get the idea. We shouldn't try to rationalize any of this, basically).

Yet I have seen people say that regardless of the likes of 1 Corinthians 6:18 ("Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body"), Tamar did not do anything wrong whatsoever in Genesis 38. I've always had problems agreeing with that (while nonetheless leaving the final accounting of things/full judgement in the Lord's hands = we can and should call a spade a spade, but ought to leave judgment to the Lord).

To my recollection (could be wrong), Our brother here pointed out to me that I was perfectly comfortable saying that what the midwives and Rahab did "was not really lying, in the sense God prohibits" so why am I now blanching so much when the thing in question is sexual immorality, not lying?

That got us onto the subject of the group of people who would not only insist that Tamar taking things into her own hands was wrong, but also that lying too is always wrong. People like this would say something along the lines that any time people lie, it is out of a lack of faith. For example, did the midwives believe that God could not somehow deliver the babies, so that's why they took things into their own hands? Did Rahab not believe that God would be able to deliver the spies, so that's why she took things into her own hands? Did Tamar believe that God could not somehow deliver her from her terrible situation, so that's why she took things into her own hands? These people would say that in all these cases, what the "best option" would have been is for deception to not be involved. So, in essence, lying is always suboptimal, in their eyes. And so too in Tamar's case.

This has always set off my legalism warning bells (since the implication is no doubt, "Well we don't lie, you see, unlike those people").

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

In any case, sorry for the rambling. To distill all of this down to something more specific to ask, I think I believe the following:

Jesus only broke the "Pharisees' Sabbath", and never actually broke "God's Sabbath." God's law is black in white (once you determine what it actually is---instead of fake human corruptions of it), without the slightest hint of relativism.
The prohibition against lying is black and white and not circumstance-dependent whatsoever.

But it is important to understand the boundaries of what is encompassed in this black and white absolute. Honesty to enemies is not part of the command. So while the command is not relativistic in the least, you do have to correctly interpret what it is we are being black and white about, exactly.

The prohibition against sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:18 (and other verses) is black and white and not circumstance-dependent whatsoever

Including in Tamar's case. It is not our place to sit on our high horse and judge Tamar in the self-righteous way some do, but that does not mean that we somehow should not say that her actions (which unquestionably involved sexual immorality = playing the role of a prostitute) were not somehow morally wrong in this particular area. Judah's actions may have been "more wrong" overall in the wider situation, but that doesn't mean Tamar did not err in this matter specifically. Had she trusted God more fully rather than choosing this path, there would have been some other path that would not have involved sin (even though we may never know what that path could have been, it must be true).

The seemingly disparate interpretations here (i.e., hand-waving away lying on the one hand while seeming to refuse to do the same with Tamar's actions on the other) are only contradictory on the surface. In reality, what is being held to is the inviolability of God's truth, according to His standard (not fake human standards).

What do you think?

Your friend in Jesus,

Response #13:

Re: "I certainly doubt the salvation of many people who claim to "be Christian" in some way or another". It would be foolish not to have reservations, especially in cases where the behavior is contrary to what the Lord requires. But in practical terms, we are to treat such individuals as we would unbelievers in terms of association (1Cor.5:9-13), so how we are to act is not at all dependent on our ability to look into the hearts of others (or lack thereof).

So I agree with your two points, except to say that I would not carry any brief on #1, because I don't want to give anyone any sort of "cover" that might induce them to think there is no danger in such a course of action. "Was Peter saved even so? Sure. He deeply regretted what he had done, and it is God's great mercy that it didn't cost him his salvation. So don't even think of going down that road: it's there in scripture to warn us away, not to tell us it's no problem to deny the Lord."

Re: "So not so much that they cannot do it as believers, but that they ought not do it". Right. As with the above, just because it is possible that there may be some circumstances where some Christians may do some things which seem to us to be denying Christ and yet in God's great mercy might not actually lose faith and salvation, doesn't mean that it is not a horribly dangerous and ill-advised thing to do, one to which we as spiritual leaders don't want to give any indication of approval even so.

On the next set, to some extent while they share a common theme they are different enough situations to demand separate treatment. Since our Lord is perfect, we can say with certainty that He did not do anything wrong in not following the rules for the Sabbath as they were taught by the scribes and Pharisees – and we also know well that these groups greatly expanded the teachings in wrong and legalistic ways (cf. Matt.15:9; Mk.7:7). As "Lord of the Sabbath", Jesus was authorized to do whatever He pleased regardless, but He says this to make the point: first, He was not doing anything wrong (example of the priests and David); second, even if He were committing some technical violation (contrary to fact), He had the right to do so.

On Tamar, no, there is no scriptural "stamp of approval" on what she did; there is also no condemnation, and Judah's statement along with the fact of being in the bloodline of the Messiah are indications that we should not condemn her for what she did (and I have tried to explain that in more detail elsewhere as you recall). But that is a far cry from condoning the conduct or using it as an example of godly behavior. This is not a "go and do likewise" situation. This is a "be careful of judging others" situation. It was deceptive. It was understandable. Whether or not God would punish us for similar deceptions which are not technically lying is between Him and us. My take-away is to want to keep myself as far from any situation that might be compromising and lead to the temptation or need to be deceptive as I possibly can.

I think your summary is good. And, I very much agree, we all ought to try and avoid any interpretation which calls God's standards into question on the one hand, or condemns the conduct of others without sufficient justification on the other.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #14:

Hi Bob,

Just clarifying some here:

1)

Judah's statement along with the fact of being in the bloodline of the Messiah are indications that we should not condemn her for what she did (and I have tried to explain that in more detail elsewhere as you recall). But that is a far cry from condoning the conduct or using it as an example of godly behavior.

What exactly does "not condemning her" mean? Are we talking about the self-righteous hypocritical judgement of Matthew 7:1-5?

Both in the past and now, I've seen you emphasize this point---that this situation with Tamar is a

"be careful of judging others" situation

and I suppose I've never quite understood what is behind this line of thought. That some people go too far and pretend like everything was Tamar's fault, with Judah somehow not being culpable in any way? Is that why we ought to lean in this direction when teaching on this point?

2)

The thing that hasn't really "computed" for me (so to speak) is why we can't just say "the sexual immorality that was part of this ploy of Tamar's was morally wrong" without pulling any punches about that particular statement. That is a very different thing from saying "this situation was Tamar's fault" or "Judah had no blame" or "what Tamar did is morally equivalent to actual prostitution" or anything else. But merely say "sin is sin, and no circumstances excuse it, even very difficult ones."

Can we not say that openly?

I see this in Jude 1:22-23, for example:

Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear, hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

So we are to show mercy, yet not let our attitude toward sin slacken, lest we become complacent about it.

I wrote:

The prohibition against sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:18 (and other verses) is black and white and not circumstance-dependent whatsoever

Including in Tamar's case. It is not our place to sit on our high horse and judge Tamar in the self-righteous way some do, but that does not mean that we somehow should not say that her actions (which unquestionably involved sexual immorality = playing the role of a prostitute) were not somehow morally wrong in this particular area. Judah's actions may have been "more wrong" overall in the wider situation, but that doesn't mean Tamar did not err in this matter specifically. Had she trusted God more fully rather than choosing this path, there would have been some other path that would not have involved sin (even though we may never know what that path could have been, it must be true).

And you said

I think your summary is good. And, I very much agree, we all ought to try and avoid any interpretation which calls God's standards into question on the one hand, or condemns the conduct of others without sufficient justification on the other.

I am having a hard time understanding how we avoid calling God's standards into question if we say this particular case is not sexual immorality (and therefore sin in a moral sense). And I don't see it as being a problematic sort of self-righteous condemnation if we merely say "this action is sinful per this verse."

So do you agree that Tamar's conduct here runs afoul of 1 Corinthians 6:18 and similar verses about sexual immorality, and that we ought to teach such when discussing this passage?

In Him,

Response #14:

I've been careful not to try to parse this one out too specifically. I have explained (see the link) how that Tamar had little choice, how that Judah commends her, and how that scripture doesn't condemn her, and how that she is in the line of Christ and specifically mentioned as such. So that is what I mean about us not condemning her when scripture seems to do the opposite; that would be going beyond what is written in my opinion.

Re: "when teaching on this point?" I can't imagine ever "teaching on this point" or using this as an example, except to point out that she is in the line of Christ and that as such is an example of God's grace.

Re: "Can we not say that openly?" You are responsible for what you teach, and I'm certainly not going to tell you what to say or not. My perspective is that Tamar was essentially invoking the levirite tradition/right. I wouldn't want to commend her; but I'd be leery of condemning her, given the above. Since that tradition/right/law doesn't exist for us, there is no reason for anyone to even dream of taking similar actions today.

Re: the rest of your email; see the discussion above. It's not comparable to anything we see or would face today, so it's not in that respect in conflict with the NT passages you cite. No NT author or speaker condemns her for what she did; and the result of the union is the continuation of the line of Christ. So, again, I'm not inclined to explain the event in those terms (and, again, I'm certainly not telling you what to teach or not).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15:

Hi Bob,

I'd like to understand where I'm going wrong. If I lay out how I got to where I am, could you show me which bit is drawing incorrect conclusions?

I've tried to be reasonably thorough in describing all the things that I think are contributing factors.

1) Historical accounts and their not-uncommon lack of commentary about right and wrong

I agree with this paragraph from this email posting:

As to your questions on the book of Genesis, this illustrates quite well a point I often have to make for people doing self-directed Bible study, namely, that the historical books of the Bible accurately record "what happened", and they often do so without implying or meaning to imply that because something is recorded to have happened that therefore God approves of it. The book of Judges is a premier example of this and no doubt for that reason includes the famous divine disclaimer of the last verse "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" (Judg.21:25; cf. Judg.17:6). Consider also in the book of Genesis the case of Abraham. Abraham is one of the greatest (if not possibly even the single greatest) believer in world history. Yet he was not perfect. When he is correctly and historically related to have taken Hagar to wife at Sarah's behest in his attempt to produce an heir, we are certainly right to think, "Abraham, God promised you offspring without suggesting that you resort to another woman; is this really an act of faith or isn't really an act of rationalization?" I think beyond all question that we (who would certainly have done even worse than Abraham were we in his place) with the great benefit of hindsight and the rest of the Bible story can say without equivocation that, yes, Abraham made a mistake here. So even though Genesis records the story accurately, this is an historically correct account, not a divine endorsement (after all, after "operation Hagar" Abraham had to wait a long, long time for Isaac, the delay coming no doubt at least partially as a result of this error). If this principle (i.e., of the Bible's historical books relating the facts without necessarily thereby suggesting divine approval of every human action they relate) can be true even of Abraham, how much more would it not be true of someone of lower spiritual status (like Lot and his daughters)? What we as students of scripture must do is to consider all the facts and the whole context of a story in a historical book in the broader context of everything else the Bible has to say, and then we may be in a position to say whether or not something was justified (or make other interpretative deductions). Failure to observe this very basic and, I believe, common sense principle has resulted in many fallacious interpretations of scripture. This is especially so in the book of Acts where the early actions of the apostles and believers who were, after all, in the process of being educated by the Spirit as to the true dynamics of the new era of the Church into which they were entering, made a number of mistakes and faulty assumptions in the things they did and said (cf. Peter having to be educated about the salvation of the gentiles: Acts chapter 10). If we assume that because Peter was a famous believer that therefore everything he did was correct, then we miss this important hermeneutic principle: historical books relate what happened; that may sometimes mean that a great believer does something less than perfect and that this is recorded as a fact.

This is largely the principle upon which I have been operating in the matter of Tamar and Genesis 38.

When we label Abraham's actions regarding "Operation Hagar" a mistake, are we doing that based off of, for example, Paul's use of Hagar and Sarah as metaphors for the difference between the old covenant of works and new covenant of grace and freedom (Galatians 4:21-31)? So we would say that scripture does address this particular action of Abraham, and it is on that basis that we weigh in on it with a categorization of right and wrong?

How about Jacob stealing Esau's blessing by deception in Genesis 27? Isaac certainly doesn't commend Jacob for this---the NIV says he "trembled violently" in Genesis 27:33 (in anger? displeasure?)---but the text of the passage does not really comment on whether what Jacob and Rebecca did here was right or wrong. One could get into the details of Esau's lack of care for his birthright in Genesis 25:29-34 and what that says about his worthiness as inheritor of the promises of the covenant and so on, but... couldn't Jacob and Rebecca have gone about this in a way having more integrity?

I am bringing up this other case to try to understand how scripture's condemnation (or lack thereof) factors into our judgements. I think there is quite a range from "we should not pass judgement on any recorded actions if scripture does not do so in the text directly" and "we can freely opine as we wish, based on how things seem to us personally."

As I have considered such things in the past, the interpretive approach that has seemed prudent so far has been to reason based off of principles the Bible teaches, and simply compare recorded actions in historical accounts to those, in the absence of a definite pronouncement one way or the other in the text.

For example, in Genesis 19:30-38, the text says nothing about the actions of Lot's daughters, and as far as I know, these actions are never mentioned anywhere else in the Bible (to give us a textual basis for condemning them). Yet I think we would be remiss as teachers to fail to condemn them. So it is that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," as they say. That is, just because the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns a situation does not ipso facto mean we ought not ever make judgements of that sort, right?

While we're on the topic of Lot, there is also that bit earlier in this same chapter of Genesis 19---verses 6 through 8---where he tries to "solve" the problem at hand by sacrificing his virgin daughters in place of the angels. Again, as far as I know, this is never directly mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, but it is another case where I feel like we definitely ought not be shy about condemning his actions there. Pressing circumstances aside, offering up ones daughters to be raped is never OK, right?

So where does that leave us, then? The Bible does not comment on Tamar's actions in Genesis 38 one way or the other. The Bible does not comment on Jacob's actions in Genesis 27 one way or the other (?). So are we left with making sense of them through the application of biblical principles (as I have attempted to just describe)? Or is there some other reason we should be more circumspect with our judgements?

2) Regarding the levirate law/tradition, and what exactly "sexual immorality" (πορνεία) is

Moving onto the specific "principle" I have thought relevant in this passage: πορνεία. (Compare just above where I explain the idea of using biblical principles in the absence of direct pronouncements in the text itself).

As I understand it, the levirate law/tradition in view is that of a man raising up children for the widow of his brother by marrying her and naming the first son from such a union the heir of his deceased brother. Judah not giving Shelah to Tamar would be in violation of this, so failure to uphold this law/tradition is what drives the actions of Tamar. That much is clear.

But it is not Shelah whom Tamar deceives and sleeps with, but Judah (i.e., father-in-law, not brother-in-law, as per the levirate law/tradition). And even there, where I get lost is less that particular substitution (as if it would all be OK if it were Shelah instead), but more something along these lines:

1) Sex outside marriage is wrong (and that is far from just a NT thing... right?)
2) Tamar and Judah were not married in Genesis 38
3) So... sin?

I am wondering if it is (1) that is tripping me up? The Old Testament has concubines, and relations with them are not seen as sinful, certainly. (But they are sort of quasi-marriages, are they not?). I'm not sure they are exactly encouraged either---as we've been over in past exchanges regarding the matter of polygamy in the OT. At any rate, per a certain strict reading of (1), concubines would be "sex outside of marriage" too, and so if the Bible treats those relations as decidedly not-sinful (even if not encouraged), then...

Perhaps this is the core of it? My daggers come out whenever I hear things about the OT God being "different" from the NT God, and things of that sort. God doesn't change. God's morality does not change. It never has, and never will. And, moreover, God's morality is not relativistic and circumstance-dependent. Murder---if it is actually murder (and not, e.g., self-defense)---is always wrong. And so too with sexual sin. There are never circumstances that excuse it, if it is actually behavior that crosses into that area.

So... what is "sexual immorality" (πορνεία) then, exactly? I suppose I had been simply defining it as "sexual thoughts and actions of any sort involving people not married to each other." That would include adultery proper, sex before marriage (i.e., between two parties not otherwise married), and even lusting after someone you are not married to (in the sense of Matthew 5:28), be the object of said lust already married to someone else or not. I've always understood God's plan for sex to be confined to marriage (in the sense of Genesis 2:24, repeated in Matthew 19:4-6). So under this line of thought, any sexual actions/thoughts about sex/etc. external to marriage are πορνεία. Black and white.

It is according to that "accounting of things" that I have been linking Tamar's actions with πορνεία, in that sexual relations occurred external to marriage (?). Since I already know you have no compunctions about teaching that not everything biblical figures do in historical passages is morally right (as discussed in the first section), how you view this must really be at the root of not condemning Tamar's actions, right? Like, that somehow this whole situation was not πορνεία? ...But how not? I think this is where I must be going off the rails, but even though I've puzzled over this a good bit now, I am not certain what assumptions are bad or where I made an improper deduction or what have you.

Could you explain where exactly I go off the rails in this reasoning?

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

The above are my actual questions. As to this bit

Re: "when teaching on this point?" I can't imagine ever "teaching on this point" or using this as an example, except to point out that she is in the line of Christ and that as such is an example of God's grace.

Where my thought process had gone was something along these lines:

"Operation Hagar" is an example of Abraham taking things into his own hands rather than waiting on the Lord
Paul going to Jerusalem despite the Spirit's warnings is another example in much the same vein
And so too would be Tamar's action's in Genesis 38, if you interpret things that way

So it is not so much that this passage in particular would be the key to any specific teaching, so much that if one holds the interpretation that Tamar should have waited upon the Lord instead of taking things into her own hands---dressing up as a prostitute and sleeping with her father-in-law and all... =πορνεία (?)---it would fit in with other biblical examples of the concept, if one were teaching on it and wanted examples from scripture.

I should say that I understand that us teaching the importance of waiting upon the Lord and His timing rather than thinking we are authorized to take things into our own hands does not somehow solely depend upon this passage as evidence. Abraham and Paul's examples certainly illustrate the point just fine all on their own, e.g.

Secondarily, say one is teaching through the book of Genesis verse-by-verse. When one gets to Genesis 38 and invariably someone asks about "well, what was all that?" I would think one would have to say something about Tamar (be that similar to what you have been saying, or a negative appraisal). Either way, is that not teaching on it?

Maybe I'm missing what you had in view with this comment?

Thanks for bearing with me on this one.

Your friend in Jesus,

Response #15:

First off, I'm not saying that you are "going wrong" at all. You are a teacher in your own right. If that's the way you see it, that's the way you see it. And, of course, if we are teaching Genesis, we'll have to address that passage – and certainly might have to do so anyway. People have questions, and they often revolve around hard to explain situations in scripture.

There are plenty of these. I certainly appreciate hackles up about OT / NT differences. But it is the case that we are not under the Law now and not under the same societal system. No one's mother-in-law would send her daughter-in-law down to a factory floor at night to lie down beside an older man as, essentially, an offer of marriage. It might not be porneia, but in our culture and from our point of view it lacks propriety on all levels. And it would be totally nonsensical today . . . but not in that time and place. Boaz understood perfectly and the entire operation was godly and blessed of God.

Where it comes to Tamar and your assessment of porneia on her part, my first reaction is that Judah is the one who ran after a prostitute. It's also notable that no one seemed to think that strange or in any way improper. So if we are going to assess Tamar, we need to assess Judah as well, and we know his conclusion about the entire matter after the fact (viz., that her conduct was "more righteous").

What business of his was it that his widowed-daughter-in-law was pregnant and what right did he have to put her to death as a result? None of that sort of thing applies today. Today, Tamar would go find another husband (if that is what she wanted). So it is undeniable that there are a lot of forces at play here which make no sense at all if viewed solely from our societal point of view . . . where Judah should be ashamed of himself and Tamar should be ostracized by believers but certainly not put to death.

If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:12 NIV

But neither Judah nor Tamar were put to death (granted, pre-Law but similar societal milieu; cf. the levirate custom), and in the actual event the child is in the line of the Messiah.

As far as waiting on the Lord, of course that is always the right thing to do, but there is also a time to take action when the Lord does supply that proper opportunity. Tamar did wait (apparently a long time), then took advantage of the unique opportunity presented to her (i.e., Judah recently widowed).

I'm not defending anyone here. But given the discussion above, I'm also not willing to place this situation in the same category as Peter and Abraham (and I don't see scripture pointing that way as it does in the other two cases very clearly).

Apologies in advance if I've missed any point you want addressed – do feel free to write back.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #16:

Hi Bob,

First off, I'm not saying that you are "going wrong" at all. You are a teacher in your own right. If that's the way you see it, that's the way you see it.

Right. I suppose I meant things more like "according to your way of seeing things, where exactly does what I said diverge from what you think/hold to be true?" I'm still making my mind up on things, but I'm trying to understand where specifically your point of view differs from what I shared. Like, not in the wider appraisal of Tamar's actions generally (since I now know where you stand on that), but specifically how we view her actions vis-a-vis how we define the concept of porneia. See my questions below for what I mean.

But it is the case that we are not under the Law now and not under the same societal system. No one's mother-in-law would send her daughter-in-law down to a factory floor at night to lie down beside an older man as, essentially, an offer of marriage. It might not be porneia, but in our culture and from our point of view it lacks propriety on all levels. And it would be totally nonsensical . . . but not in that time and place. Boaz understood perfectly and the entire operation was godly and blessed of God.

I agree... but there is no sex there. I get that you are showing how important the cultural backdrop is in interpreting these things (and how things can seem nonsensical otherwise), but what I am trying to grapple with is what exactly the core part of porneia is that is not culturally dependent. Adultery, for example. But what else?

Where it comes to Tamar and your assessment of porneia on her part my first reaction is that Judah is the one who ran after a prostitute. It's also notable that no one seemed to think that strange or in any way improper. So if we are going to assess Tamar, we need to assess Judah as well, and we know his conclusion about the entire matter after the fact (viz., that her conduct was "more righteous").

I agree with this too. But sometimes it is the case that everybody is wrong, even if there are lesser and greater degrees of it. For example, in Genesis 16, both Sarah and Abraham should have trusted the Lord's promise for an heir (rather than Sarah giving Abraham Hagar to bear a child through her, and Abraham going along with this plan without refusing or even protesting). Through Judah's own words, we know that he viewed Tamar's actions as more righteous than his in a comparative sense. But as I said before, that does not ipso facto clear Tamar of all wrongdoing. Since it's only a comparative.

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

Questions:

1) What of the deceptive actions of Jacob and Rebecca in Genesis 27 that I asked about? That was my chosen foil for the present discussion of Genesis 38 in that it is another thing in a historical account that is not clearly put in negative terms like the situations of Abraham and Paul that I brought up (at least, I think not?). So in that sense it is parallel-ish. Do you think we can/ought to weigh in and find the deception there improper in a moral sense, or refuse to weigh in on that situation as teachers? And what about the examples of the actions of Lot's daughters in Genesis 19:30-38, and the actions of Lot in offering up his daughters in Genesis 19:6-8? My intent in asking this is not some sort of "gotcha." I am trying to understand what our "hermeneutic" ought to be when we consider the actions of these people in historical accounts, without the Bible in any place directly speaking to the morality of said specific actions. I had said that it seems to me like sometimes we clearly need to use spiritual common sense to label things as wrong and needn't be overly squeamish about doing so, when the shoe fits.

2) Regarding Tamar's actions and porneia, last response I offered a definition for porneia: "sexual thoughts and actions of any sort involving people not married to each other." I grant you that the Bible never defines things in quite that way (although cf. Hebrews 13:4 and 1st Corinthians 7:2, on the inference of sex being completely within the bounds of marriage).

2.1) So do you think we should not project such a definition upon the word? Is the definition too specific or otherwise not accurate or sufficient somehow?

2.2) Or is it that the definition is fine, but you see the situation regarding the levirate law/tradition overruling it (in much the same way that one is justified in refusing to obey one's parents---which is an ironclad command in scripture---if they pressure you to do something illegal)? If deception is justified in dealing with one's enemies (cf. the Hebrew midwives and Rahab), then so too what would ordinarily otherwise be considered porneia? I hope it is clear how this is different from the issue being something like (2.1), wherein we would be defining the bounds or categorization of the sin differently.

2.3) And so if someone were to say "well, if Tamar's circumstances let her do such a thing without sin, then I too can choose to use sexual immoral behavior 'righteously,' just how people can lie to their enemies without sin," then what do we say to that? Do we say that the levirate law/tradition is an exception that no longer applies, so that what they say is black and white impossible? Well, how do we know, interpretively, that there are no other possible exceptions that overrule prohibitions against sexual immorality? (Proving a negative is hard; if the door is open here even in that limited situation of the levirate law/tradition, then I'm not seeing on what interpretive basis we could be black and white in shutting down people making parallel claims for their circumstances. We can be highly skeptical and think them terribly wrong, but we then can't truly assert that they are wrong as an unassailable absolute?)

If we say that (2.2) is the right of it, and we respond to (2.3) by saying something like "it is obviously not the same---use your brain for even a second/listen to the Spirit," I might be able to get behind that. After all, as you have repeatedly pointed out, Tamar is acknowledged by Judah as being more righteous than he, and she is in the lineage of Christ. Those are not nothing as far as inferential evidence goes.

But I'd nonetheless still like to have a better understanding of (1) and (2.1), (2.2), and (2.3)

3) If we phrase things in terms of the Will of God, either Tamar did or did not act in accordance with the Will of God. That is a black and white thing. I am struggling with the idea of "Tamar ought not be condemned, but neither should we defend her actions." If her actions were not in accordance with the Will of God, they ought to be condemned. If they were, then we can freely defend them. So is not taking a viewpoint one way or the other in this way holding to the belief that we honestly do not and cannot know, from what the Bible says in this passage?

In Him,

Response #16:

Re: "sometimes it is the case that everybody is wrong". That is certainly true and always good to keep in mind. If I recall the story correctly, Tamar was probably given to Er without much say so on her part, given the culture (scripture just says that Judah "took a wife" for Er). Then it was the Lord who put Er to death. Then Onan abused her and failed to do his duty and the Lord put him to death too. Then Judah implied to her that Shelah would be next in line. But in spite of this, Judah did not give her to Shelah when he was of marriageable age. So far, Tamar has been nothing but abused. She has done nothing wrong but all the men in control of her have done nothing BUT wrong (to one degree or another). She was doomed to childlessness for no fault of her own, not free to remarry outside of this clan . . . and we should not underestimate the burden of that shame in that day and age (think of Abraham's burning desire for an heir, and cf. Elizabeth, mother of John: "The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people."; Lk.1:25 NIV).

Tamar doesn't have a place in my list of great women of the Bible. But maybe she should have.

Should she have waited on the Lord? That is what she had been doing. Did she have any other actions she could have taken? Besides just continuing to wait? I don't justify her conduct. But scripture does not condemn it either. That doesn't mean it was right or that we would ever recommend any such thing. But given the corner she was put in through absolutely no fault of her own, making use of the only opportunity and avenue she had to address her situation is something I am loath to condemn. I don't think we need worry about characterizing the action. Scripture is very clear about what she did. In teaching the passage, I would explain what I've done previously and above and probably leave it at that (along with, of course, "don't try this at home" since you do not live in those times and in that culture or under that law).

1) We have to take all these situations on their own individually – just as we would in making applications to our own lives today. Lot was the only righteous one in Sodom, meaning that his wife and daughters were not. No one can condone that conduct. I have written to you before in defense of Rachel and the deception she engineered to get Isaac to do the right thing and bless her youngest in fulfillment of the prophecy given to her. There is a time to wait; there is a time to act (Eccl.3:1ff.). We certainly don't want to endorse deception. But in this situation we can, I think, understand it. Also in Tamar's case.

2) As suggested, I don't think struggling over definitions here is helpful. She did what she did. It's obvious and clear in scripture. What we make of it is the key. I think "then I too can choose to use sexual immoral behavior 'righteously' " is the proof of the pudding. If we make a point of insisting that this incident was a specific type of behavior ruled out by the NT, then because of what transpires – praise of a sort from Judah and blessing and the gift of godly offspring (there is no way she became pregnant without the Lord as in all cases) perpetuating the line of the Messiah – we are then left to explain away how God apparently saw it and/or handled it.

3) Rather than getting hung up by what we can't say, I would prefer, in teaching this passage, to embrace what we can say:

~ If you're going to get married, make sure it is to a godly woman, otherwise you will have trouble. Judah went off on his own (Gen.38:2) and married a Canaanite woman – on his own "hook". He didn't ask Jacob's opinion, even though all three of his ancestors received divine instruction and/or divine help and or guidance in the reception of a bride and the conception of an heir.

~ If you're going to have children, bring them up right. Now of course the parents can't be held responsible for everything their kids do. I certainly wouldn't want my parents blamed for some of the things I did before getting set straight by the Lord. But they did bring me up right and eventually I turned to the right way. But Er "was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD killed him" (Gen.38:7 NKJV), and Onan displeased the Lord, "therefore He killed him also." (Gen.38:10 NKJV). Neither child's behavior speaks well of Judah's parenting skills.

~ It is best to wait on the Lord in all such things. Who knows? If Judah had waited, if he had consulted with Jacob, perhaps he would have gotten a much better bride. Someone of character. Someone of courage. Someone willing to risk being burned to death if necessary in defense of her rights. Maybe he would have gotten Tamar to wife in the first place . . . and had the godly offspring which eventually he did receive through her.

There are many of these stories about the patriarchs which remind us that at the time there was as yet no Law. It reminds me of the inspired summation of the time of the Judges:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:25 NKJV

But of course even without the Law and even without the monarchy, God was in charge. And He always works things out in His perfect way, even if sometimes we have a hard time understanding it or explaining it.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #17:

Hi Bob,

Going to try to keep it shorter, to focus on a smaller set of things per-volley.

1)

As suggested, I don't think struggling over definitions here is helpful. She did what she did. It's obvious and clear in scripture. What we make of it is the key.

Could you explain what you mean by this more? What does what she did being obvious and clear have to do with things (i.e., why is that observation important)?

2)

I think "then I too can choose to use sexual immoral behavior 'righteously'" is the proof of the pudding.

Could you explain what you mean by this more?

3)

If we proclaim this incident a specific type of behavior ruled out by the NT, then because of what transpires -- praise of a sort from Judah and blessing and the gift of godly offspring (there is no way she became pregnant without the Lord as in all cases) perpetuating the line of the Messiah -- we are left to explain away how God apparently saw it and/or handled it.

Could you explain what you mean by this more? That the NT can't possibly teach that the behavior of Tamar in Genesis 38 was sinful/wrong otherwise 1) Judah would not have praised her, and 2) God would not have blessed her with children in the line of the Messiah? Is that what you are saying here?

Your friend in Christ,

Response #17:

1) Because worrying overly about definitions is at the heart of where most theology goes astray (cf. 1Tim.6:3-5; 2Tim.2:14; 2:23; Tit.3:9).

2) Analogous to #1. If we try to reduce this entire pericope to one word / definition, then that can be used (i.e., misapplied) by those who listen to us for justification of their actions and for rationalization.

3) I am saying what I said. We can't deny the facts of apparent justification of Tamar by Judah's words and by God's resolution of the matter on the one hand, and the lack of condemnation in scripture on the other.

How goes the podcast effort?

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #18:

Hi Bob,

How goes the podcast effort?

Slight shift in plans there. Going to try to prioritize the in-person stuff, since I can always catch-up on turning the things into a podcast later. Having my focus split too much means everything takes longer to actually happen.

I've still got a big list of things to work through, but it is a lot shorter than it was before my vacation, and there are only so many things, after all. It has seemed to take forever, but since it is a finite list, if I keep plugging away, eventually it will all get done. That's what logic says, at any rate.

I would appreciate continued prayer support in it all---especially that I can finally get this second "soft launch" finally off the ground, and turn on the content production switch more.

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

I'm talking over some of this discussion we've had with our fellow teachers in the group, and they are helping shed light on all the pieces and how it all goes together. It's quite an effort to coordinate just four schedules (especially across three widely different time zones, and __ works night shift to boot...), but it is good for us to get back into the calls like this (at least when we can) to encourage one another. Talking to them is "different" than talking to you about such things, in a good way. When we are not arguing about something so much as discussing it (as here), I get that glimpse of why you always said having that cadre of other preparing teachers was so valuable for you.

I'm going to go read some in BB3B: Hamartiology and a couple other areas before going any further regarding this particular topic. I think that would be a good idea. Do you know off the top of your head if you have any other materials (email postings? sections of studies?) that address topics like these:

How expectations changed (?) regarding behavioral expectations between the Age of the Gentiles (pre-Law), the Jewish Age (under the Law) and the Church Age (New Covenant)?
Something along the lines of whether some of the "intensification" of the teachings Jesus articulates in the Sermon on the Mount were "always the expectation?" We know that with greater (explicit) knowledge comes greater responsibility (cf. Luke 12:48), but was the underlying set of right and wrong behaviors always the same, and the only thing that changed was our degree of relative culpability for it based on differences in explicit knowledge of right and wrong?
On the idea that whether or not the exact same action is sinful varies based upon what time period one is in---that is Age of the Gentiles (pre-Law), the Jewish Age (under the Law) and the Church Age (New Covenant). Does that have any truth to it, or is it a distortion of true morality, which is independent from one having more less explicit writing (since we all have consciences and so on)?
We know there were some things in the Law (e.g., the dress and dietary codes) specifically designed to set Israel apart in a physical way from other surrounding peoples. These things don't have much of a moral component to them. Would we say that not doing such things was not sinful before the Law and under the New Covenant, but failing to do them under the Law would be sinful?

I feel like you've probably written on these matters before, so I'm sort of looking for reading material on the subjects. Any good places to start?

Yours in Christ,

Response #18:

Sounds reasonable to me.

And I am delighted that you fellows have "found each other".

On your questions:

1) Sin has always been sin, whether recognized as such or not (e.g., Rom.5:13 in the Greek; link to corrected translation). And importantly, there are many things that are sinful which people don't necessarily see that way, and plenty more which are sinful which people don't bother themselves about. How many sins did Tamar commit in the process of this event from start to finish? Only God knows. Same for Judah and even more so. But we focus on only one thing.

2) Sin has always been sinful. But Christ has died for all sin.

3) If God tells us to do something and we don't do it, that is a sin; if God tells us not to do something but we do anyway, that is a sin. We are not being told not to eat pork; we are being told not to baptize with water (in my interpretation of things). So at the moment for believers to eat bacon is no sin (but was in John's day), but to guilt people into being dunked is (but was not in John's day). And all sin is forgiven every believer at salvation and on confession thereafter.

Based on the above, I don't have any particular place to point you (other than BB 3B).

Keeping you and your fabulous ministry efforts in my daily prayers, my friend (along with all other concerns).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home