Question #1:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
I know it's posting day, but you can ignore this email until you are ready to
respond.
I've studied Daniel 9:24-27 (the seventy weeks) somewhat extensively on Ichthys
over the years and must confess I still don't understand all of it. I understand
verse 27 and some of verse 26, but I've struggled with everything else. Could
you explain this passage to me? Just finished reading through Daniel, and this
is one of those "tough" ones that I've continued to have trouble grasping. Maybe
I'm just overthinking it (the numbers are what I think are tripping me up), and
perhaps it's simpler than I realize.
I also wanted to ask about Daniel 11:45-12:1. I agree with your interpretation
that verse 45 describes the beasts' destruction at Armageddon. But why does
verse one of chapter twelve say "At that time" when it describes the
commencement of the Great Tribulation, making it sound as if the person who
"comes to his end" in Daniel 11:45 is someone else (not the antichrist) who is
destroyed before or at the tribulation's midpoint? Obviously, the antichrist is
meant. But why does the verse read the way it does when the antichrist isn't
destroyed until Armageddon? Daniel 12:1 revisits events before the beast's
destruction (this is not uncommon in biblical prophecy, particularly in Daniel
11). But why the wording "at that time?"
In Christ,
Response #1:
Sure thing.
Daniel 9:24-27:
(24) Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to complete the rebellion and consummate sins (i.e., to bring apostasy to the full), to atone for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness (i.e., the saving work of Christ), and to seal up vision and prophecy and anoint the holy of holies (i.e., the coming of the Kingdom).
This verse introduces the prophecy and explains how much time was left in toto at time of writing for the Age of Israel in order to fulfill all of the prophecies of everything that is going to occur before the Messiah returns (mostly during the Tribulation).
(25) So know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to desist [from rebuilding Jerusalem] (in ca. 485 B.C.: Ezra 4:6-23), and for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (beginning forty-two years later in ca. 443 B.C. and taking an additional seven years to complete: cf. Ezra 7:11-28; Neh. chap.1-6) until Messiah the prince there will be seven weeks (i.e., between the decree and the rebuilding) and sixty-two weeks (i.e., between the rebuilding and the birth of Christ in ca. 2 B.C.). [Jerusalem] will be repopulated and rebuilt with streets (i.e., residential reconstruction) and fortifications (i.e., military reconstruction) [and will remain so] even during difficult times (e.g., the occupation of Antiochus Epiphanes).
These weeks (literally "sevens") are weeks of years. They are broken down here into two sets, 7 (49 years) and 62 (434 years), leaving out the last seven – the Tribulation which will be the last seven years of the Jewish Age. The 7 is the time of rebuilding of Jerusalem; the 62 is the time between that and our Lord's coming into the world. The reason why Daniel is given to break up the rest of the total into two parts is to encompass the rebuilding phase and thus give us an anchor to understand what this prophecy is referring to. We also are given a foretaste of the troubles that will occur during this interim time (the days of the Maccabees).
(26a) And after the sixty two weeks, Messiah will be cut off and have nothing (cf. Is.53:8), and the people of the prince who is coming (i.e., antichrist) will destroy both the city and the holy place.
The above refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. following the rejection of Christ in 33 A.D.
(26b) And his end will come with a flood (i.e., the "flooding away" of his armies at Armageddon; cf. the same Hebrew word, sheteph, שטף, in Dan.11:22; Nah.1:8), and until that end there will be wars – [appalling] devastation has been decreed.
The Romans were/are "the people of the prince who is coming" (antichrist) in the first half of verse 26; in the second half of the verse immediately above the prophesy jumps forward to the Tribulation (a case of prophetic foreshortening; see the link).
(27a) Then he (i.e., antichrist) will confirm an agreement (or "covenant"; Hebrew, ברית, beriyth) with the powerful [in Israel] during [that] one [remaining] week (i.e., the 70th week, the Tribulation), but in the middle of the week (i.e., just prior to the Tribulation's mid-point) he will put a halt to sacrifice and offering (i.e., eliminating Moses and Elijah and interrupting the temple rites).
Now we get details about antichrist's relationship with Israel (above). Here we see that the remaining week is indeed the Tribulation; a seven year period which does not begin until after the foreshortening gap. The beast makes a treaty with Israel but he breaks it "in the middle of the week", resulting shortly thereafter in the Great Tribulation, the last 42 months.
(27b) And on account of the extreme [nature] of [his] abominations, he [will] be causing desolations (i.e., desertion and estrangement from God), even until the end when what has been determined will be poured out upon the one characterized by [this] desolation (i.e., the beast as archetype and cause of the alienation and rebellion from God which he fosters).
This last part above characterizes the Great Tribulation and the resultant "Great
Apostasy".
Do feel free to write me back about any of this. Main reference at Ichthys is in
CT 3B under "the origin of antichrist" (at
the link).
As to Daniel 12:1, "at that time" is a general reference meaning "within that
time period" and specifically here "at the beginning of that overall time
period", namely, the Great Tribulation, the second half of the seven years
(corresponding to the period after Revelation 12:7ff.). So Daniel 12:1 is going
back to the beginning of the last 42 months (similar to Genesis 2:5 and
following where we are given a more detailed treatment of events that were
already described).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Ok, let me see if I got it right. When you add 434 and 49, you get 483.
From the decree to cease rebuilding Jerusalem to the birth of Christ,
there were 483 years, which leads us to 2 BC (the birth of Christ). From
the beginning of the decree to stop rebuilding Jerusalem to its
completion (rebuilding didn't start until 42 years after the decree and
took 7 years to complete), you have 49 years. From that completion, you
have 434 years to the birth of Christ.
62 plus 7 is 69. The tribulation is the 70th week after those two
(skipping the church age by leapfrogging all the way down to the
tribulation). The two thousand years after the cross comprise the church
age, not the Jewish age (so that is not included for them, except the
tribulation). But the tribulation counts as both the Jewish and the
Gentile age.
However, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. took
place during the church age, but still needed to be mentioned because of
the extreme importance of that event.
Did I correctly understand everything here?
On Daniel 12:1, that explains it. Thanks!
In His grace and power,
Response #2:
By Gentile age you mean "Church Age", correct? Also, we've said that the final
seven years of the two ages (Jewish and Church) overlap only in the
interpretation I've provided (but if not, then the timeline is seven years
further out).
The destruction of Jerusalem is something that happens both in 70 A.D. and at
the end of the Tribulation. And we see our Lord also likewise doubling this
event. In the following passage we also see application to both destructions:
"Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
Luke 21:21-24 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Thanks! Reminds me of Matthew 24.
To switch topics, I think I remember a few years back asking you about
whether it would be sinful or not to "pretend" to deny our faith in the
Lord to save one's loved ones ("We will kill them unless you deny your
faith," something like that). Well, this topic came up among a small
group of believers I was conversing with at work yesterday evening
(about 3-4 people). Yes, I know this is a hypothetical, but I wanted to
ask about it again from a slightly different angle. This one guy said
that lying about one's faith (pretending to renounce it to save one's
loved ones) wouldn't necessarily be wrong or sinful because Rahab lied
to save the two spies (he mentioned being wise as serpents but innocent
as doves). But my first thought is that lying about your faith and lying
about the location of two people are two different things (this is all
assuming the mark of the beast isn't involved). Would it be a sin to lie
about one's faith to save others (saying you renounced your faith in
Christ when you actually didn't)? Or would this be an area of
application? My gut feeling is that we should never do this, but I get
what the guy was arguing.
In Christ,
Response #3:
Re: "lying about your faith and lying about the location of two
people are two different things". Absolutely.
Good spiritual common sense on your part.
This is an important issue. Scripture is very clear about the mark and
about denying Christ.
This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.
2nd Timothy 2:11-13 NKJV
There are certain occasions as in the Rahab example where prevaricating with evil people is allowed. But not when it comes to representing Jesus Christ and our faith in Him. With that type of rationalizing, one could be tempted to rationalize taking the mark ("I didn't really mean it / fingers crossed").
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus. Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”
Revelation 14:9-14 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Even if the mark isn't involved (this would be something that occurs
hypothetically outside the tribulation), I still believe lying about our faith
would be something we shouldn't do. So I absolutely agree with you. Is it even
possible to lie about one's faith to save someone else? And if one does so
without denying Christ, would that still be considered a sin? I'm assuming so
based on the passages you cited, but that would require the person to actually
deny Christ in their heart. But are you saying that even lying about one's faith
is tantamount to actually disowning Christ?
I do think this is an important issue, especially given the possibility that
some people may try this during the tribulation (people like the guy I
mentioned, for example).
In Christ,
Response #4:
I agree completely.
I used this illustration (rationalizing taking the mark) because 1) it puts
things in perspective: scripture equates that with damnation; and 2) the
question may be coming up soon enough in actuality.
Meanwhile, re: "Is it even possible to lie about one's faith to save someone
else?" Deception is NOT part of the gospel. The gospel is the truth. That would
be like putting a casino facade on a building and when people wandered in
locking the door behind them until you'd "evangelized" them. Nothing good would
come of it. Reminds me of some rescue missions of the past where they'd only
give you the food you came for after the sermon. Or another example, fifty years
ago there was a fundy song, "I found it!" Somebody got the bright idea to post
billboards around the country with that phrase . . . and a 1-800 phone number.
When people called to find out what "it" was, they dropped the gospel on them
(or some version of it – with who knows with that methodology). I had an RC
acquaintance who called – it did NOT result in his salvation. He was not amused
. . . and probably rendered less likely to listen in the future. It does matter
HOW we do things.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
I see. With the examples you gave, not only does it not give a good witness (it
would likely turn people away from the gospel), but it is to suppose that these
people confess the truth afterward. It seems unlikely that a person whose loved
ones are being threatened with death would confess to his persecutors that he
lied (or maybe not). The part "Deception is not part of the gospel" stuck out to
me the most. In the hypothetical I mentioned, the person isn't allowing their
light to shine; they're hiding it. In that case, such behavior flies in the face
of Matthew 5:13-16, whereas Rahab's case didn't. Do you think that's a good
argument?
Thought I'd mention that this guy (I believe he's a youth pastor at his church)
who brought up this topic asked all of us what we would do in such a situation
(granted, it's hypothetical). I told him I would confess my faith, not lie about
denying it to save anyone. He had no issue with that but also had no problem
with people lying because, according to him, there is no right answer because
both choices could be acceptable. I didn't agree because I had earlier stated
that telling the truth was the right thing to do, and he pushed back. After that
point, I just went quiet and said nothing (I find myself doing that quite often
when I know I'm not gonna convince the people I'm talking to). I'm a teacher
whose job is to teach those willing to be taught, not an apologist.
Lots of smoke here in Maryland from the wildfires in Canada and in some of the
northern Great Lakes states. Is it pretty bad in Louisville?
In Christ,
Response #5:
Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it.
Re: "I'm a teacher whose job is to teach those willing to be taught, not an
apologist." Indeed. But even apologists are not allowed to bend the truth.
"Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven."
Matthew 10:32-33 NIV
The thing that is most revealing about all this is that this sort of discussion
was NOT necessary. But it is typical of traditional "theology" and of people who
are not really interested in delving deep into the truth to come up with these
sort of wacky hypotheticals and worry about their implications and applications
when they aren't actually coming up in the first place.
No smoke to notice here. We're below the jet stream at present.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
"Generation of spermatogonia from human and non-human primate pluripotent stem
cells"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590926002298?via%3Dihub
Do you think the Lord will allow this to continue? This, along with the
"headless human sacs" scienticians are trying to create make me wonder if this
is how the new nephilim will arise.
In Jesus may He come soon,
Response #6:
Re: "Generation of spermatogonia from human and non-human primate pluripotent
stem cells". I've got no idea what this is. The demons don't need to know
"science" – they just know how to "do it". The problem – for them – is not the
ability but the consequences. There are untold numbers of them cooling their
heels in the light-less Abyss for just such violations.
As to "allow it to continue", antichrist is the devil's seed and he will
be cast into the lake of fire along with his false prophet at our Lord's second
advent return, while Satan himself will be detained in the Abyss for the
duration of the Millennium (as will all of his followers). I have also
speculated that the "ten kings" who follow him as rulers of the ten provinces of
revived Rome will also be nephilim (that explains both their extraordinary
abilities and their willingness to subordinate themselves to the beast). Other
than this small number, I don't see any scriptural indications of any other such
creatures on earth during the Tribulation – and if we are indeed close, one
would have to conclude that all eleven are already around.
As to "allow" in the sense of allowing the hubris of science to continue,
we know that this sort of breaking all manner of previously unheard of bounds is
reaching a break-neck pace not only in science and technology but in all other
human areas as well. It's one of the things that makes me believe we are a lot
closer to the end than the beginning. But it doesn't answer the question we'd
like: "exactly when?".
Meanwhile, this world has always been hostile to believers and to the truth (see
the link). We are only "noticing it" because we have the godly, biblical
perspective on life.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Hi Bob,
I'm beginning to see the evil that's always been with us. I'm in my periodic
pass through the Bible from beginning to end and I'm reading as current trends
instead of history with principles. I read Moses' parting words to Israel in
which he warned about corruption that's the same as has infiltrated our society.
Details have changed but the substance is just the same.
If those people succeed in creating a viable sperm, there are probably women who
will take it. I doubt the offspring could be considered human. Would the sin
nature be passed on or will we see an antediluvian type of evil? I doubt we
would know until and unless it becomes a reality. If you're right about this
fall, I doubt they'll have time. If it goes another seven years, it probably
will become a reality.
Thank you for your prayers. You and yours remain in mine as always. How is your
surgery healing?
In our Lord,
Response #7:
Yes, throughout history since the fall, there's nothing fundamentally new under
the sun in history (at least in terms of human behavior); only the texture is
different. People are the same essentially then as now – possessing sin natures.
And the battlefield is essentially the same too: the devil and his minions
running the show as much as they are allowed to do. But we do have the Spirit
indwelling us – which they did not have in the OT. And we do have the entire
Bible – what an incalculable blessing that is! Too bad even most Christians
don't properly appreciate it – or more to the point take advantage of it along
with good teaching of it (when that can be found).
There's plenty to worry about but there's really no point in worrying about
anything. God is in complete control. And in fact nothing happens that wasn't
not only anticipated by Him but also ordained by Him before He even created time
and space. Everything we see is small beyond imagination – if only we come to
see how "big" God really is.
I've recovered pretty well. I "lost a step" or two but I'm fighting to get them
back. I got too aggressive about it a month or so ago and that is when I
strained my knee. Both knees are doing better now though, thanks!
Keeping you in my prayers too, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Bob, I don't think most Christians even READ the Bible. At least from what I've
seen. But I'm at a very low attitude about everything nowadays.
Glad you're healing.
In our Lord,
Response #8:
Re: "I don't think most Christians even READ the Bible." I'm afraid
you're right! And, of course, even if they do, if they are not mixing that with
good Bible teaching, they're never going to get anywhere in terms of spiritual
growth.
Re: "low attitude" – to put it another way, "realistic appraisal".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Hi Bob,
Just a quick check in...will send you a longer email later in the week..
[omitted]
At the moment though, I am keeping quietly away from it all, taking it one day
at a time and busying myself with work on the house, study and clearing the
decks for ministry. I am still suffering a lot emotionally but every day, the
pain of it gets a little easier to bear and I am able to be a bit more
functional and productive the more distance I make from when everything was at
its worst, at its most acute. I was emotionally in shock before but now I have
been able to cry and grieve and this has enabled me to process things, to heal
and move forward.
I have to say that __ has stuck by me and is patient with me as he sees how much
pain and distress this has caused me. __ has had a lot of heartbreak and
betrayals in life too and can relate.
I know I will get there and I am chipping away at things day by day..was
emotionally and mentally paralysed from doing anything before but I am lot
further down the path than that. Just trying to build up my momentum of study,
spiritual growth and laying the groundwork to be fully working in ministry soon.
The Lord is always with me and ever faithful and true. I long for His Second
Advent and to be with Him in His kingdom, free of all abuse, unkindness and
cruelty and to be surrounded by brothers and sisters who really do love me and
do not seek my harm.
Your friend in Jesus,
Response #9:
Re: "I long for His Second Advent and to be with Him in His kingdom, free of
all abuse, unkindness and cruelty and to be surrounded by brothers and sisters
who really do love me and do not seek my harm." As do we all! This is yet
another great reason to be fixing our hearts on what is to come and not on what
is down here right now (Col.3:1-2).
I'm sorry that this is still such a struggle but I am encouraged by your good
report, my friend! And good for __! I am praying for __ as well.
Yes, keep "chipping away"! That is the only way to fell any tree. Even a sequoia
will yield eventually to even a dull axe, as long as we are consistent and
persistent.
Keeping up the prayer, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Hi Bob,
If you want the link I can send it. I think the headline says it all. It's
getting dicey for all of us. They seem to be going after everyone with the label
"Christian." If pressed, I have to tell the truth and from what I read in the
news, that would put my life at risk. If so, so be it. It looks like Matthew
24:9 is coming true today.
I pray all is well up there in L'ville. It's been HOT here and my poor old bod
can't really handle it anymore.
In our Lord,
Response #10:
Sorry to hear about the heat! We've had a respite here. And I hear that in
Michigan they have finally been set free from the smoke. Looks like there's a
tropical storm headed Texas-way. Maybe it'll cool things off a bit for you.
In terms of persecution of Christians, while I hear what you are saying and
while there is truth in it, it is incumbent upon me to notice and point out that
the devil is very crafty. His foul offspring, after all, will claim to be Christ
(hence "anti"-Christ, meaning substitute as well as opponent). And the beast's
religion will be pseudo-Christian – a lot like most of the church-visible is
today which is involved in new age drivel and charismatic nonsense.
Stoking up hostility against can be the ploy of a grandmaster of deception,
because 1) it aligns people in an anticipated way; 2) it motivates them and
makes them ripe for action (political); and gets them thinking entirely in a
secular way instead of what is the right approach for Christians: putting things
in God's hands.
After all, this ministry has posited opposition to a middle-eastern alliance
gathering support in the guise of a "crusade" as one of the ways antichrist will
rise to power. So while we abhor this trend, we also need to recognize that it's
one the devil intends the beast to make use of in deceiving putative believers.
Prayers for your health, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hi Bob,
Well said! I'll stop pestering you with this since you are quite aware of it. It
saddens me, but it is what it is.
Cooling off a bit down here tomorrow.
Thank you for your prayers. You. of course, remain in mine.
Yours in our Lord,
Response #11:
Glad to hear it's cooling!
Nice weather continues here . . . and the tree that came down in the storm is
finally gone.
Posting tomorrow!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Hello Mr. Luginbill,
How are you? How is your summer research and article work going? Has
your knee fully recovered?
In response #12 of yesterday's email postings, you mentioned August in
the month of possibilities for the start of the Tribulation. That
surprised me a little, because I still think of August as "summer"...but
I realize now that that isn't based on biblical information, but just
the weather here in the Midwest. Sometimes I wonder where I'll be and
what I'll be doing (at work, at the grocery store, sleeping...) when the
worldwide "peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an
earthquake" happens. Is there any sort of protocol that we should be
thinking about (like, if we're at work, do we just finish our shift and
go home and say to our family, "well guys, here we are")?
On another note, the person at work that I had previously been trying to
witness to (and then felt the need to step back) is no longer with the
company. It was a good experience, even though I'm doubting his
seriousness about actually seeking the Lord. I think the Lord protected
me throughout the situation. Anyway, thanks for all the prayers that you
said for that situation.
I would really appreciate it if you would say a prayer for me to find
and keep a good rhythm with all my responsibilities (work, time with
God, and my other obligations). It's time to really ramp up my
commitment and walk very seriously with the Lord. But I'm having some
trouble getting going. I know you say it's better to do a little bit
consistently then to go full tilt and then immediately crash and burn,
so just getting the right balance I guess is what I should be striving
for.
Thanks for all your prayers for me. I hope you are doing well!
In Christ,
Response #12:
Doing well, thanks. The knee is getting there (mostly now the muscles around it
which are still strained a bit). I'm trying to get this article done before I
run out of time and classes start, but the admin load is weighing. Just found
out my part timer had to drop out for health reasons so I'm scrambling to find
someone to teach Latin 101 in three weeks.
Re: "protocol", none that I know of. In fact, with the exception of very clear
instructions not to take the mark of the beast, there aren't any particular
instructions given. What I have done, in CT 7,
is to provide a
"code of
conduct" which outlines some of the more important "should and shouldn'ts)
for the Tribulation (at the link). But these are general rather than specific.
What I can say as well is that there is every indication that while it will be a
very trying time, believers are going to be required, as much as they are able,
to go on with their lives just as we do today. It won't be different, really,
just harder because of the situation.
"Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left."
Matthew 24:40-41 NIV
In this passage, our Lord is talking about the moment just before His return – and we see there is still labor going on inside and outside.
All you people of the world, you who live on the earth, when a banner is raised on the mountains, you will see it, and when a trumpet sounds, you will hear it.
Isaiah 18:3 NIV
The advantage believers will have is that we will know exactly what this means.
Everyone will "hear" and experience the opening of the Tribulation (Rev.8:1-5),
but only believers who know the truth will understand the import. Things will be
changing (for the worse, as the Spirit removes His restraint;
link), so we need to be ready for that (see
CT 7).
Re: "August". It's a question of what the "correct" Jewish festival
calendar is; it's lunar so August, September and October are all possible months
(even though September is when the festivals are being held in traditional
Judaism this year).
Thanks for sharing the answer to prayer! I do pray for you daily, my friend, and
will be praying for you for help in "hitting the right stride". Thanks for your
prayers as well!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hi Bob,
Please clear up my confusion. During the Exodus when the Israelites
crossed the Red Sea, my understanding has been that they went East to
West. Wandered 40 years in the desert but entered the Promised Land and
crossed the Jordan from the East. How did they get from the West to the
East?
Thanks. I pray all is well up there in L'ville.
In our Lord,
Response #13:
Egypt is west of Israel so the direct route would be west to east;
following their departure, the Israelites were led south not by the
direct route "Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see
war, and return to Egypt" (Ex.13:17-18).
So the wandering took place mostly in Sinai after the crossing of the
Red Sea.
The short series, Exodus 14 (at the
link), explains the details about the route.
To rephrase your question, "how did you get east to west"?
Doing well, although my part timer had to drop out for health reasons so
I'm scrambling to find someone to teach Latin 101 in three weeks.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hi Bob,
It looks like I've got a lot of reading and digging into an atlas I haven't used
for years coming up. I thought Egypt was south of Israel. (Geography hasn't been
one of my strong suits.)
It still amazes me that the Israelites could be so pig-headed after seeing what
the Lord did to Pharaoh. Also how quickly they perverted again once Joshua died.
To answer your humorous twist. I was offered a job by people I liked and
trusted. Austin was a pleasant place back then (42 years ago) but now, I
wouldn't go there if I were paid. It's in the top 10 cities in the US for
growth.
Sorry about your assistant. I don't imagine Latin teachers are easy to find.
In our Lord,
Response #14:
Yes, southwest, so they had to go northeast across the Red Sea.
Re: "pigheaded": But then how many Laodicean Christians are trusting the
Lord and doing what He wants, even though they've read all about that in the
Bible. The Tribulation will see many such judgments and deliverances, but how
many will respond the right way? It takes faith built up strong through truth
and testing to do what's right when the pressure is on. Antichrist is, after all
the antitype to Pharaoh as the Tribulation also is to the exodus (see the links
in CT 3B and
CT 7).
Re: Austin – but you're pretty happy where you are now, right?
Re: "I don't imagine Latin teachers are easy to find." Not in Louisville
who have 18 hours of grad credit in the language or an advanced degree – and not
for what we pay them for one course.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
[omitted]
Response #15:
I'm praying for you, my friend, and for everything in your situation.
I do think it's true that 1) when we are doing what we should be doing,
especially when we are just cranking up, we do get "hit"; and so 2) we need to
endeavor to continue in spite of the hits; but 3) it's also true that we have
the Spirit and that nothing is impossible for Him even if it seems impossible to
us. Therefore . . .
Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
James 4:7b NIV
Good to keep in mind as the time grows closer.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
I'm still studying James 5:12, and I'm still confused about this verse (this and
Matthew 5:33-37 have always, admittedly, confused me). I wanted to clear a few
things up. Obviously, James is not discouraging us from taking oaths in a court
of law, the military, etc. My impression was that James is talking about taking
an oath or vow before God. With that said, is James saying that we should never
take oaths (before God) at all, of any kind, for any reason (however and
whenever made)? I looked into this one source as a possible study reference, and
it said...
After considering scripture like this I conclude that our text in Matthew, and the same teaching in James, does not prohibit the taking of legitimate oaths and vows. When Jesus said, “Do not take an oath at all”, he was referring to the kind of so-called oath-taking promoted by the Pharisees. This kind of oath-taking was not made explicitly in the name of God. In taking oaths by lesser things, they intended to obtain confidence in what they said without putting themselves in any jeopardy if they proved to be liars. In other words, if your oath to something other than God (i.e. my mother’s grave, on my life) is for the express purpose of escaping the force and sanction of the vow, you must not swear “at all”. It is this kind of shallow swearing, not all swearing, that Jesus condemns.
We can also be helped by the context provided in Jesus’ teaching. If the intention were to condemn all swearing, the passage would teach just that and nothing more. The text would communicate “Do not take an oath at all” and be done with the topic. That is not what we have in the text, we have a further explanation of what kinds of oaths are specifically forbidden. The additional context provided by
“…either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.”
gives further indication that not all swearing was prohibited, but a certain type of swearing contained dishonesty through dissociation. The rest of the text is added, as further exposition, to explain the former “Do not take an oath at all” by giving example cases.
Not only is this my interpretation of this text, but I believe it to be the apostolic interpretation by example. If it were true that Jesus forbade all swearing of oaths and vows by this teaching in Matthew 5:33-37 then we would expect to see the Apostles operating with that correct interpretation. Instead, we see the opposite.
Paul is under a vow in Acts 18:18.Paul is under oath in Rom 1:9.
Paul is under oath in 2 Cor 1:23.Paul is under oath in 1 Thess 2:10.
Paul is under oath in Gal 1:20.Paul is under oath in Phil 1:8.
There can be many appropriate instances where oaths and vows can be made. Neither Jesus nor James is discussing these areas. Instead, the context of the teaching and the Apostolic example show he is informing the everyday speech throughout the Christian community. As believers, our word is to be trustworthy, so we don’t need to swear an oath every time we make obligations and contracts to one another.
https://awakeningcamden.com/blog/2025/01/02/christians-and-oaths
Do you agree with the above, or are oaths ("all swearing") something that we
believers should avoid entirely? I've never really been sure what your view is
on that. Like, when he says, "There can be many appropriate instances where
oaths and vows can be made," "can" doesn't have to mean "should," does it (if
discussing "appropriate" instances where oaths and vows can be made)? As in,
lawful but not profitable, something along those lines.
In Christ,
Response #16:
On your question, I stand by what I wrote you before:
On James 5:12 and Matthew 5:33-37, yes, they are saying exactly the same thing, just in different ways. Taking oaths was always problematic. It's in the Law for the same reason slavery was/is: people were doing this and going to be doing this so it needed to be regulated. But especially since the Law has been abrogated, oaths were a double trap: not trusting that a simple prayer was sufficient; feeling that one needed to "do something" to get what one wanted (legalism). James is writing to a Jewish audience and this problem was even more pronounced for them than for gentiles, so "above all" indicates to us that this was a repeating problem he knew through the Spirit had to be addressed. The phrase "or by any other oath" merely is short hand for "and I also mean all of the specific things our Lord mentioned – no need to repeat them here – and anything else you might be tempted to swear by".
Here is the operative part of what our Lord says in the context at Matthew 5:32-33:
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all."
Matthew 5:33-34a NKJV
What our Lord is clearly referring to here – and James also in his very clear recalling of our Lord's words – is not affirmation, whether in a legal or personal or rhetorical setting, but rather the system of formal "promising" under the Law.
It is a trap for a man to dedicate something rashly and only later to consider his vows
Proverbs 20:25 NIV
This is what Jephthah found out the hard way. Promising God to do something – in
the hope of "getting something from Him" – is very unwise and spiritually
immature. It was happening, like slavery, so it is regulated by the Law. But it
is foolish and dangerous, and, as the Proverbs verse suggests, inherently
problematic – which is the reason why our Lord forbade it and why James, whose
audience consisted mostly of Jewish believers, many of whom were having
difficulty parting with the Law, essentially repeats His prohibition (cf. Acts
21:18-23).
All of the instances in the epistles mentioned in the article are "affirmation"
oaths, not "formal oaths of promise" which is what is being forbidden. So, no,
it's not a problem for a believer to swear to tell the truth in a court of Law,
e.g. The only outlier is in Acts:
[Paul] had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.
Acts 18:18b NKJV
This is a vow taken along the lines of (if not precisely) the Nazirite vow, a
provision under the Law – the Law which had and has been abrogated by the cross
(Rom.10:4). At this point, Paul was still water-baptizing and, as we see here,
still not completely "up to speed" about the transition in this era of
transition from Law to grace (see the link in BB 6:B,
The Time of Transition versus the Present Status Quo). And because it was a
time of transition, we have observed many times before how that it is dangerous
and often disastrous to build doctrine on events that happened in the book of
Acts (see the link in the same study,
The Nature of the Book of Acts). Acts relates what happened. Paul did take
one of these "promissory oaths/vows". I guarantee you that he wouldn't have done
so after it became clear to him that the Law was fulfilled and no longer valid
to perform in terms of such rituals (the major theme of the book of Hebrews; cf.
also Galatians, also written later than the vow). The only time we know of that
Paul was involved in anything like this after that very early time of his
ministry in Corinth was in Jerusalem, the event that led to his first
imprisonment, and a clear mistake (see
the link).
Promising God we'll do something is always a mistake. We should recognize that
we are weak and prone to mistakes and sins. We should "just do" whatever it is
that is right for us to do and be grateful for His grace when we are able to do
His will. But promising we will do so ahead of time is just asking for trouble,
and the more vehemently we promise (as our Lord made clear), the bigger the
trouble when/if we fail to follow through to any degree. It's an arrogant
mindset we would all do well to avoid. As if we knew the future or were in
complete control of ourselves and our situations!
For man also does not know his time:
Like fish taken in a cruel net,
Like birds caught in a snare,
So the sons of men are snared in an evil time,
When it falls suddenly upon them.
Ecclesiastes 9:12 NKJV
What a dangerous article! Someone not knowing any better could easily read it,
fail to see any distinction between an affirmation and a promise then go on to
promise God, "Oh God, I vow that I'll never do XYZ ever again!" – then what
happens when they (inevitably) do? Or, "Oh God, if you do ABC for me, I'll do
XYZ for you!" – then what happens if God does ABC and they don't follow through?
Never mind the fact that this is basically trying to bribe God, and thus
incredibly blasphemous in the first place. "Teaching" like this is not just
wrong; it emboldens weak and immature believers to do foolish things that can
get them into terrible spiritual trouble.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
I understand now. Agreed. I didn't understand the issue, so I'm glad I asked!
Thanks! And after reading your response, you're right; that is a dangerous
article! Again, I'm glad I asked! With this in mind, I think it would be good
for me to mention the difference between the two (affirmation oaths vs formal
oaths of promise). However, as I have always done when asking you questions
about the book, I will reference you for this one because I credit you for
helping me to understand it (and/or see something that I didn't see originally).
I don't like having to quote, but sometimes it is necessary (even though I
always try my best to interpret a verse myself, whatever verse it might be). I
try to do that as little as possible, but I trust you more than anyone else. I
have looked into Curt's interpretations on some of the more difficult verses
throughout the book. He does a good job overall, but I do believe he has gotten
some things wrong that you and I wouldn't agree with.
One thing is that he believes James was written before Hebrews and that these
scattered Jewish believers James wrote to are the same ones that scattered as a
result of the persecution that broke out after Stephen's stoning. In the grand
scheme of things, though, I can overlook that stuff. He still did a good job
overall, in my book.
In Christ,
Response #17:
My pleasure, my friend.
This sort of thing is exactly what passes for teaching in our late Laodicean
age. It has an appearance of depth but it misses the point entirely. Just
imagine how misleading the teachings out there about the Tribulation must be –
and just how misled many if not most believers are ahead of that critical time,
either knowing nothing at all or "knowing" only misinformation (like the
"rapture")!
In terms of citation, I trust you. Whatever you want to do and however is fine
with me.
Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,
These questions are non-critical, so please answer your other correspondents who
have more pressing concerns first.
In 2 Samuel 17:28-29 e.g., I find the same word translated as butter or curds or
milk or cheese in various translations. I know curds are a fresh cheese, e.g.,
ricotta and cottage cheese (which I've made) but a pressed and cured cheese
makes more sense since it keeps longer at ambient temperatures and is something
that could be transported to other people. What is the correct translation or
most accurate?
Also, throughout scripture I read that the Lord promised the Israelites a land
flowing with milk and honey. I'm a beekeeper and my standard objection to people
who think the grocery store "milk & honey" is the real thing is, "The lord
didn't promise the Israelites a land flowing with an ultra pasteurized milk-like
substitute and denatured cooked and filtered honey" but the real thing which is
quite different than what you find in the grocery. Yet the only reference I can
find in Scripture that describes the actual harvesting and using of honey is
Samson's enjoyment of fresh, raw honey out of a lion's carcass. What do I
misremember? Also in all your reading of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, have you come
across any reference to how, if they did, the ancients managed bees?
As an aside, the crazy weather and increasing earthquakes seem like what the
Lord promised the Israelites when they perverted themselves. Which seems to have
been more usual than following God. Could we be enjoying the drought and
encroaching famine for the same reason?
Your post this week was encouraging. It's beginning to look like the number of
people concerned about Tribulation is growing. I hope that's true. I pray all is
well with you and yours and your surgery is healing well. Any good news about an
assistant?
In our Lord,
Response #18:
I understand about raw vs. processed honey – and milk as well. Best milk I ever
had was on my uncle's dairy farm right from cow to pitcher via the refrigerator.
Raw milk is not generally available retail in KY, but one can get the
non-homogenized sort.
In terms of scripture, there aren't a lot of words for dairy products in
Biblical Hebrew. When Jesse ordered David to take "ten cheeses" to his brothers
and the army commanders what he calls them, literally, is "cuts of milk" (חָלָב
/ chālābh). The only other BH word that has anything to do with dairy
products is the one in the passage you ask about, 2nd Samuel 17:29: חֶמְאָה /
chem'â. In Modern Hebrew the word means "butter", but that would be a bad
translation in this context. In the context, everything taken on this long, hot
journey is dried and preserved, so we're clearly talking about cheese here, and
probably a very hard variety (like Parmesan or the like).
Interestingly, this lack of specification was not unique to Israel. Cheese in
Greek is tyros from which we get bou-tyros, brought into English
through Latin: "butter" (i.e. bu-ter). Etymologically it means "cow cheese" – (bous
= cow, cf. Latin bovis whence "bovine"), as opposed, no doubt, to "goat
cheese" (i.e., "feta"). Latin otherwise doesn't have a word for butter (cheese
is caseus cf. Sp. queso).
Re: "crazy weather" and "increasing earthquakes", I'm no climatologist or
geologist, but it seems to me that the weather has always been crazy, one way or
another. In the 14-19 cent., Europe went through a "mini ice age", for example,
and the biggest recorded earthquake anyone knows of on this continent was in
Alaska in 1964 (we're not sure how big the 1811/12 one near my home on the New
Madrid fault was but it was probably bigger). Also, if there were a direct
correlation between degeneration and such things, one would expect bigger and
worse phenomena. That will happen, but not until the Tribulation.
“I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity;
I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold,
A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir.
Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the LORD of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger."
Isaiah 13:11-13 NKJV
Hope you're doing well, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Thanks Bob,
That explained the ambiguity in the translations. This is one of the few times
my common sense actually made sense.
Raw milk is available in Texas, but only on the farm. I used to buy it all the
time until they got out of the dairy business. Now, a 100+ round trip for the
little milk I use is more than I'm willing to drive.
Thank you for reminding me of past weather. The dust bowl and the European ice
age make current weather look rather tame. Of course, mankind has always been
evil. Still, maybe all the bad weather, past and present, has been punishment.
It took the Lord a long time, on our time scale, to crack down on Israel and
Judah. 1st and 2nd Kings reads as a chronicle of all the evil done back then.
I'm not convinced our politicians are any different except maybe a little less
bloodshed.
In our Lord,
Response #19:
Re: "punishment" – or merciful wake-up calls. Everything God does is done
for a purpose. Anyone who has suffered from any of these things and turned
around as a result will ultimately look back and see them as the gracious
blessings they no doubt were. After all, that is the entire purpose of the
trumpet judgments: to warn the world and encourage everyone to repent (link).
Forgot about the "dust bowl". Thanks for the reminder.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
I don't know about 1811-12 but the dust bowl was just after the roaring '20s
which was pretty loose from what I remember reading. 1964 was the height of the
free love and dope time; my generation who trained their kids poorly and the
troubles have only worsened since then. Government since then reminds me of what
I read in Kings -- one does right and the next six or more do evil. You would
think that in six centuries, people would learn, but it never seems to happen.
In our Lord Jesus,
Response #20:
Given the fact that the "T" of the Calvinist's TULIP is right on the money,
"total depravity" (I guess one out of five isn't terrible), I don't know of a
single era or a single area in world history (possible exception: David's reign
in Israel), where one couldn't connect natural disaster to gross human evil.
"You would think . . . people would learn". Not with what I know about
people.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
[p.s., special appeal to any and all who have felt the need to contribute to this ministry over the years but have been unable to do so (because it doesn't accept them): please consider blessing Bible Academy with your godly generosity.]