http://ichthys.com/ 
Bible Interpretation XIX

Question #1:   
Hello Doc,

Hope all is well with you! Just have a quick question I couldn’t find on the site. In Mark 6:48 it’s says “He meant to pass them by”. ESV Never picked up on that before. Any idea why he intended to do that. Does it mean if the boys would have just had faith, he wouldn’t have had to stop and bail them out? Just curious!

Praying for you and your ministry. They been such a blessing to me!

Thank you! 
ps. Love retirement. Highly recommend it! lol! (now I really have no excuse for digging into the Word!)
 
Response #1:
Then He saw them straining at rowing, for the wind was against them. Now about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea, and would have passed them by.
Mark 6:48 NKJV
Yes, that is essentially the way I read it too. After the dismissal of the crowd, our Lord needed time to pray. But He also needed to be with His disciples. The solution provided was for them to be occupied with a difficult journey while He prayed, and then for Him to "catch up" through a miraculous provision, that is, walking on the water past them and over to the farther shore where they would meet up. But they caught sight of Him which naturally required Him to join them then and there. 

We are blessed by having the details of what happened, so there was a divine purpose in that as well. And we see in His ability the essence of "moving mountains" by faith. As far as we know, our Lord never literally moved any mountains – it wasn't necessary to fulfill the plan of God perfectly. But He did walk on the water because that was necessary. AND He had complete faith in the Father and the Spirit's provision of this ability in order to fulfill all righteousness. 

When he tried it, Peter started to sink because he lacked sufficient faith. But our Lord never doubted. Between the two we see the issue clearly. God will provide absolutely everything we actually need to do what He wants us to do . . . but we do have to believe in the truth of that truth and not doubt it.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s., it's great to hear that you are doing well, my friend – and using your opportunities in a godly way too!
Question #2:
Hello Professor, 

Thanks so much for the answer on Mrk 6:48. Much appreciated. I am currently leading a group through Christology from your BB series. I have a question about Ps 22:1. I know Jesus quoted this from the cross for our sake, not because he was questioning the Father. Is the phrase Eli, Eli, lema Sabacthani all Aramaic or is it part Hebrew and only the verb Sabachthani is Aramaic? 

The reason I ask is in one of your emails you said it is common for the Hebrew perfect tense to be written this way, (such as in Ps. 22:1). I understand Hebrew really doesn’t have a “past tense”? Not sure about that? That’s why I was wandering if it’s in all Aramaic, does the tenses still apply? In other words, should it be why “did” you forsake me (completed or perfected) (as in, Him wanting us to understand why), verses why “have you forsaken me” as if he was questioning the Father, as most version have it?

Hope this makes sense! Praying you have a great week in our Lord!
Response #2:
The phrase "My God, my God" (Eli, Eli) might potentially be Hebrew out of this context, but the spelling of the other words and especially of the verb tells us that our Lord is quoting an Aramaic version. The two languages were very close at this point of time. But the difference in pronunciation was what lead some to think that Eli was a call for Elijah. 

In terms of verbs, Hebrew and Aramaic have presents, imperfects and perfects, although "tense" may be a bit misleading since the languages don't work in exactly the same way that Indo-European languages like English do. The imperfect was also a mood (akin to the subjunctive which English has essentially lost in terms of forms); it is also the closest thing to a future "tense" they had (it IS the future in Modern Hebrew). 

But whether translate as "why did you" or "why have you" it is clear that it's the same for our Lord (and all speakers of that time). Jesus was clearly referring to what had just happened and/or what was still happening. WE understand it's the former: the Father had to "distance Himself", so to speak, in order to judge His Son. But, since when our Lord said this that judgment was over, we can see that the quotation is a comment for our benefit on what did take place. And the ANSWER to the "why" is, "He did it FOR US".
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5 NKJV
Keeping you and your study in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Dr. Luginbill--long time, no write! I have a question about where Jesus says from the cross "It is finished!" I always thought He meant that He had fulfilled all the law's requirements to pay completely for our sins on the cross. But I have also read that one of the meanings of the word for "finished" is "paid in full." I don't remember if we discussed this earlier or not, but I did find the following in the link below, that doesn't think Jesus meant "paid in full". When and if you have time, could you please read it and give me your opinion on it? 

Thank you and God bless you, as always!
Response #3:
Good to hear from you!

You are correct. The verb in John 19:30 (and previously in Jn.19:28) is teleo, where the tel- morpheme always has to do "the end" (cf. "teleology"). This verb and its root never has anything to do with "paying" or "paying back". So while there is the idea of completion here, "It has been fully accomplished", and while the "it" is salvation wherein Jesus did die for all of our sins in the darkness before He said these words, the verb itself is focused on the fact of the "it" without reference to any sort of payment analogy – or redemption or atonement etc., even though of course salvation is comprised/described thus. 

Also, "It is finished" is actually a quote/paraphrase of the last verse of the Messianic 22nd Psalm: "He has done it!" (i.e., accomplished salvation; see the link). So even in the original, it's the accomplished action as a whole which is having attention called to it, not one specific feature of that action.

In terms of the blog post, first, it's interesting that this fellow is on staff at my former seminary. Here is his conclusion after looking at the evidence, namely, that tetelestai means “Paid in full. While an attractive and harmless suggestion, it is based on a misreading of evidence, doesn’t fit the context well, and was never suggested before the 20th century." In other words, he doesn't seem to believe it either.  Christ did indeed atone for all of our sins on the cross, but words mean what they mean and tetelestai means "It has been accomplished! (salvation)".

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Bob,

I trust you are in good health and happy! I felt I needed to write to you today as __ whom we have been praying for, passed away this morning. He has been in poor health for a year but last Sunday he fractured his hip and has declined steadily during the week. I have prayed for him for years and at one time thought there may have been a glimmer of faith but only God knows.

Although I know I did what I could to present the gospel of grace to him, we were separated by oceans for many years and I never felt that I got through to him. I am so sad at his passing, much sadder than I felt when those I know were believers passed away, including my beloved __.

Maybe I am just in a bad place right now and I can do nothing but believe that God had the victory and that I will see him again.
Response #4:
I'm very sorry to hear this, my friend. I had been praying for __ daily. 

Re: "I can do nothing but believe that God had the victory and that I will see him again". Amen! I firmly believe that there are a great many last minute conversions. The way the Lord has constructed time for us, it's possible for unbelievers to ignore "THE issue" until the end is staring them right in the face. Having experienced "temporal turn arounds" myself, the Lord getting my attention in very dramatic ways, I can easily see how many who would never be saved until the last moment WOULD be saved at the end – even if they don't have time to express it to the rest of us. 

I pray for your comfort and keep you in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Bob, thank you.

I know how busy you are and I find it truly remarkable that you have time for others ( I’m sure you have many emails to answer).

You are my “ go to “ person when I have troubling questions and I really appreciate the way the Lord is using you and I thank him for you.
Response #5:
It's my pleasure, my friend.

Keeping you and your family in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Thanks for everything above. A few final things unrelated to my last emails. 

Did Jesus have a sin nature or was He like Adam and Eve before the fall (before they had a sin nature) who were perfect in a sense except that they were still free to sin if they wanted to (which they did)? Jesus, of course, never sinned and God the Father foreknew that He never would in eternity past. Could Jesus have sinned if He had wanted? A lot of Theologians believe Jesus never had a sin nature. I thought you said He did? Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

This begs the question, what about the Angels? You've mentioned throughout your studies that they have since "made up their minds." Does this mean that they no longer have free will to turn away (they are no longer capable of sinning)? That leads to believers in eternity. Since no one will be able to sin in eternity, does this also mean that all resurrected believers will have lost their free will to sin (the capability is no longer there)? Or is it the case that the Angels and we will have the ability but will choose to never take it because temptation and death will no longer be existent and the power of the flesh (sin nature) no longer resident within us (the sin nature for humans only and not for Angels since they never sinned?)? 

Sorry for the separate email (I meant to ask you this in the last one I just sent but forgot). Just curious, but I wanted to get your opinion on books titled "How to study and understand the Bible." What do you think about courses and books that "teach" you "How to interpret Scripture?" Have you ever read any books like that before? I've never read any myself, nor do I have any plans to because I'm not interested. 

For me personally, I don't doubt that there is definitely some good content in these books and that some of what they say is true (but also common sense), so I don't want to discredit the works of others by sweeping them under the carpet (God will judge and evaluate their work one day, not me). However, we should, as you've mentioned a few times, not be afraid to call a spade a spade. The concept of trying to teach people how to understand, study (same things I guess?), and interpret Scripture is understandable and reasonable but seems to restrict, constrain, and limit how people choose to study their Bibles by making too many things black and white and cookie cutter. Like, some things are black and white (indispensable) such as context, structure, theme, etc. etc. so I get that. But teaching people how to study Scripture doesn't guarantee their accuracy on various doctrines and teachings, especially some of the bigger ones that we hold to that most in the church tend to get wrong. Plus, everybody studies and learns differently. Attitude (the disposition or state of a person's heart) is probably one of the most critical and important things a believer can take with them when approaching Scripture. 

Again, I've never read any of these books, so I couldn't tell you what they contain. But I just get bad vibes when I hear of such works as these, even if there is a lot of good and reasonable content within them. What are your thoughts on this? 
Response #6:
No. Our Lord was sinless in every way. He did not have a sin nature but was sinless in His body as well as in His behavior for His entire life. He was the "lamb without spot or blemish". If He had had a sin nature, He wouldn't have been fit to bear our sins and we would all be lost. How was He born without one? That is the reason for the virgin birth. The sin nature is passed down through the male, not the female – on account of the fact that Eve did not sin in cognizance as Adam did. That is why the serpent was told, "I will put enmity between your seed and her Seed", with no mention of Adam. That is why there are two genealogies of Christ, one tracing the legal line (father: in Matthew); one tracing the biological line (mother: in Luke). Latest on this is in Hebrews chapter four under "Without Sin" (at the link).

In terms of angels, their test of free will was different than ours. Their nature is different from ours. They are not subject to the pressures of the sin nature, nor to the ravages of time, nor to all of the other pressures we face in this short life in these fragile bodies in this dark world. So we cannot really full appreciate their test, not being them, just as they are "learning" still about our experience by observing us (1Pet.1:12; cf. Eph.3:8-10). We know that Satan and his angels have already been judged (Jn.16:11). So their time of making this choice has expired. Best place to read about this for starters is the opening section of SR 1.

In terms of "loss of free will", we don't have to be saved over and over again. That is "the choice" human beings are given, whether they make the right one or not. Adam and Eve could only choose to fall once. We who are alive after the fall face the choice of returning to the Lord, the real "tree of life", and that choice is only open during these short years on earth. Just as there is no longer any possibility for elect angels to turn away now that things are "set" (or for fallen angels to return), so it will be for us in eternity. Note please that all angelic behavior to which we are privy in scripture takes place after things were set. And no angel, elect of fallen, expresses any intention in the least of changing, nor do they behave like automatons. So saying "they don't have free will" is not accurate – they have the image of God, which is what free will is all about. I can't fly to Mars like superman. That doesn't mean I don't have free will. I do. In New Jerusalem, no one will be able to sin. Does that mean no one will have free will? Not at all. We are who we are and part of being who we are is having God's image, for we are made in His image according to His likeness. That will never change. Is free will based upon having opportunities to sin? I dearly hope not! Sin is disobeying God. We who have chosen to follow Him in Jesus Christ are still being tested as long as we are in these bodies but that time of testing will come to an end anon, and we will be "like the angels" no longer subject to death (Lk.20:36) – or sin. That is a decidedly good thing. One we most definitely don't need to worry about.

On books, there are some out there on "hermeneutics" that discuss these issues, but mostly they are either making rules about how the Bible MUST be interpreted, some of which are common sense, many of which are very wrong headed. Generally they reflect the background and tradition of the person(s) writing them. They are in my view mostly a waste of time. When it comes to prophecy, for example, there are indeed special approaches of which a biblical exegete needs to be aware, most of which are not understood in the least by the people who write such books (see the link in CT 1: "Hermeneutic Issues").

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L. 
Question #7:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Regarding the sin nature, I was gonna say, I've always believed Jesus never had a sin nature and totally don't know how I forgot about the virgin birth. I've been experiencing short-term memory loss for a while, so that might be it, possibly because of improper. 

With that said (and one last thing), does all this mean Jesus was not capable of sinning? He didn't and was foreknown to never do so, but was it something He could have done? I know that passing tests and resisting temptations further qualified and proved Him as our worthy sin bearer, but why would Satan bother tempting our Lord if there was no possibility He could sin? 

Understood regarding everything else and agreed. Well said and no confusion on my end.

Thanks! 

In His grace and power, 
Response #7:
Re: "why would Satan bother tempting our Lord if there was no possibility He could sin?" One might well ask, "why would the devil rebel against God knowing it was impossible for him to win?" Arrogance destroys judgment because it replaces actual truth with preferred "truth" (i.e., lies, whether told to others or to oneself).

The classical formulation is "posse non pecare, non posse pecare". I.e., "Able not to sin; not able to sin", but these things if not explained are contradictory. Jesus did not sin and it was foreordained that He would not. 

Let me put it this way, since we are talking about contrary-to-fact hypotheticals. Jesus did not have to become a human being; He did not have to come into this world as a man; He did not have to go to the cross. But He did! Hallelujah!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Hi Bob,

Exodus 22:2-3? This seems to contradict Matthew 24:43. Can you explain the seeming contradiction? This goes back to the question of self defense.

Thanks

In our Lord,
Response #8:
“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
Exodus 22:2-3 NKJV

"But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into."
Matthew 24:43 NKJV
No disrespect intended, but I see no contradiction. 

The passage in Exodus establishes rules for defending one's property with force, with lethal force being acceptable at night but not during the day. The passage in Matthew is not about the rules but about the common sense observation that if I suspect my house is going to be broken into because I saw someone lurking around, instead of going off to work anyway, I would have stayed home and not allowed it to happen. 

Of course the more important point is that of the application Jesus is making: if you see the second advent is about to happen, you best be prepared to meet your Maker; and, secondarily, but of no less (and for most greater) importance, since you don't know the day or hour of your death, you best not leave the issue of getting right with God (salvation) to the last minute – because then you might not have the chance.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Hi Bob,

That makes sense. I have a tendency to equate home defense with armed force. Do you have any idea why killing the intruder during the day was prohibited but allowed at night?

Has it dried out up there? I haven't heard a word from my relative in Cincy.

In Jesus,
Response #9: 
On your question, I would imagine because one has no clear idea of what one is facing at night so that "shooting first and asking questions later" is a lot more reasonable to do than when one can see clearly what the threat is and how to deal with it (call the neighbors, take known actions against a known threat which don't have to be lethal, etc.).

The Ohio is still up but we've only had a little more rain.

I think the flooding has had a lot of negative consequences. Attendance was WAY down all over campus today.

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
Dr. Bob,

I have been wondering about the following verses for a while now:

Luke 23:34 NKJV
[34] Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” And they divided His garments and cast lots. 

Acts 7:60 NKJV
[60] Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

The line, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”, what does this mean? Because it seems to me that it tries to elicit the thought of or imply that those who crucified Him were ignorant of what they were doing, when in fact, they do know, or maybe is it that it is a metaphorical passage to say that they are physically aware of the wrong they were doing but lacks spiritual awareness that this is the Son of God they are crucifying? The verse Acts 7:60 seems to be a similar passage as it evokes a similar idea to not charge the people stoning Stephen of their wrongdoing. If I am wrong understanding this, please enlighten me as I do not want to misinterpret the bible.

Brother in Christ, 
Response #10:
That is uncommonly perceptive of you, my friend. Indeed, the Luke passage is not part of scripture. It is a later interpolation, no doubt put there precisely because some well meaning individual thought that the Lord should have something to say comparable to what Stephen did – when in fact this false passage gives everyone the wrong idea entirely, as if ignorance could be a basis for forgiveness, as if everyone were going to be saved on account of this not genuinely-in-the-Bible "prayer". 

Yes our Lord died for us all, but forgiveness only comes to those who put their faith in Him, accepting His sacrifice on our behalf (something those who crucified Him gave no indication of doing).
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 2:12-13 NKJV
For the details on the interpolation, see the link.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ”
So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them.
Matthew 21:4-7 NKJV

Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it.
Mark 11:7 NKJV
You wrote: In the symbolism here, our Lord's being mounted on the colt indicates that the cross comes first since a young and untrained animal would be unsuitable for battle (i.e., for Armageddon). 

Is this why the adult animal is in tow?
Response #11:
It's an interesting observation. As you know, I do think the two animals represent the two advents (link). It certainly make sense to see the colt, the younger animal, as representative of the second advent, both because it is the younger animal whose time is not yet come, and also because it is the war animal (Armageddon), not the more humble donkey (Calvary), more appropriate to the first advent and our Lord's earthly life of humility at the end of which He gave Himself over to death to save us.

So why was our Lord seated on the colt? Because His triumphal entry was meant to symbolize His second advent entry into Jerusalem, the crown desired by His contemporaries but lost through rejecting Him as their King – out of sin (which had to be paid for at the cross along with all of our sins).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Hi Dr,

I hope all is well with you. Can you elaborate more on John 15:22? "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin." ESV as it relates to Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Is Christ specifically speaking about the sin of rejecting Him as the Savior because of their unbelief even in-light of al the miracles he has done that testify to who He is?

Is He speaking of the unpardonable sin meaning that sin can't be forgiven because it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit? How does these passages correlates with individuals prior to his first advent?

I guess I am confused about the phrase " they would not have been guilty of sin" and its context in the overall sinful nature of humanity.

Thanks for your help. In Christ our Lord
Response #12:
Always good to hear from you, my friend.

Yes, I believe you are correct. "All sin" (Rom.3:23; Jas.3:2; 1Jn.1:5-10), as anyone who has read the Law – or indeed as anyone who has observed human nature for even a short length of time knows very well. So our Lord is not saying that these men had no sin nature, nor that they hadn't sinned "at all". 

The second half of the statement in John 15:22, "but as things actually stand now they have no excuse" is referring back to the previous context where the hatred of the world towards our Lord and its persecution of believers are in view, and that is the point of emphasis, not the preceding part of the verse which is a hypothetical. 

To put this into present day English vernacular we would be justified in translating thus: "I suppose they might have been able to argue that their opposition to the truth and their persecution of you was somehow justified – If I hadn't told them the truth which they have indeed heard and heartily ignored". 

The hypothetical merely serves to underscore the fact that these persecutors, present and future, have no excuse before God because God has made the truth about His Son known to them – they have (and still do) insist on rejecting and ignoring the Word of God.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Dear Dr. Luginbill--Hi, how are you doing? How is the book going? Hope you haven't too much writer's block.

A question has come up on the CARM.org board where I debate Jehovah's Witnesses. You are aware, no doubt, of their translation of John 1:1c, "and the Word was a god." Now, Dr. Mantey once wrote that if John had wanted to convey the idea for certain that Jesus was just a a lesser god, he would have had to use a completely different sentence structure. I don't know if that is true or not. A JW named Jess wrote this:

"I see no argument here against the "a god" translation. However, what Mantey said must be addressed and he ruled out the "a god" translation from the Greek of John 1.1c and that to get that translation one would "have to use" a "completely different construction in the Greek." This is wrong because if this is so then to get "a sinner" at Acts 28.4, where the same exact Greek sentence structure occurs, one would "have to use" a "completely different construction in the Greek" then what is there...which is tantamount to saying all English Bible translations should not translate the PNV there as "a sinner"! Either Mantey is wrong with what he said re the Greek one needs for the "a god" translation at John 1.1c or every English Bible translation is wrong at Acts 28.4! Which is it?"

Anyway, I checked Acts 28:4 in our Greek interlinear, and it does appear to have the exact same sentence structure as John 1:1c. But I thought I'd ask you. Is Mantey correct? Is Jess correct? I once wrote to the Lockman people, who publish the NASB bible, about this, and how John could have DEFINITELY conveyed the idea that the Word was a god of some kind, and not THE God. I think they told me John would have written "the Word was one god" or "some god." I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly what the translator told me, who answered me.
So anyway, when you have time, could you please let me know if Jess is correct?

Thank you and take care and have a nice Labor Day weekend, and God bless you. 
Response #13:
The semester is well underway so the book is out the window till next summer. Between teaching four classes and numerous personal issues its just not going to get done this year.

The problem with your correspondent's argument is that translation, to be legitimate, has to be an accurate conveyance of true meaning. One does not have the right to plug in formulae and claim that is what a text "means" if one is well aware that one is only playing games. It is true that in Acts 28:4 and in very, very many places in Greek (the Bible included) the anarthrous construction (i.e., noun without definite article) may mean either "NOUN" or "indefinite article + NOUN". But this is an English problem not a Greek problem, something that dangerous amateurs do not seem to understand. That is, WE see a difference that the Greek does not see. 

So when we say "A God" we mean something quite different from when we say simply "God" – but Greek does not. So the question becomes, and actually should always have been all along, "what does the Greek mean here?" It is undeniable from my understanding of the Greek that if John had meant to say that Jesus was less than the Father in terms of His divinity, he would have had to make that clear in some way, and there were many ways that he could have done so. On the other hand, the traditional understanding of the passage is the natural way to take this in the Greek – for those who read Greek. 

The burden of proof, therefore, sits squarely on the shoulders of those who would wish this passage to mean something that would seem bizarre to a native speaker without some sort of signal present in the text that this is indeed what John meant.

On John 1:1, here is what I have written in the past (in Bible Basics 1: Theology):
In verse one of John 1:1-3, the clause "the Word was God" cannot legitimately be translated "the Word was a God". First, earlier in the verse, the apostle John had used the definite article with the Greek word theos to refer to the Father according to customary usage ("the [sc. Father] God"), and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if "the Word" was really identical to "the [sc. Father] God", one of the very points that John is disproving here. Secondly, Greek does not possess an indefinite article ("a/an"), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ("a certain one"; Greek tis) - the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really "God". So John only had three ways to write this: 1) the Word was "the God" (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and Christ); 2) the Word was "a certain god" (but this would mean that Christ was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father); or 3) the Word was "God" - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing deity to the Word as distinct from the Father. 
I think that the above should be sufficient for any and all who are really engaging in the argument from the standpoint of desire to know what the Word of God means. To say, as your correspondent does, "I see no argument here against the "a god" translation", has the hint of sophism, a willingness to engage in rhetorical exercises in support of purely sectarian concerns without genuine regard for the truth. In my experience, there is very little hope for consciences so badly seared.

Keep up your good work in defense of the truth!

Hope all is well.

In our Lord,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Hi--I finally found the interview, where Dr. Mantey says what he did:

Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H.E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation.

Christian Research Institute founder, Dr. Martin begins by saying:
DR. MARTIN: In John 1:1, the New World Translation (NWT) says that "the Word was a God," referring to Jesus Christ. How would you respond to that?

DR. MANTEY: The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) have forgotten entirely what the order of the sentence indicates - that the "Logos" has the same substance, nature, or essence as the Father. To indicate that Jesus was just "a god," the JWs would have to use a completely different construction in the Greek.

DR. MARTIN: You once had a little difference of opinion with the Watchtower about this and wrote them a letter. What was their response to your letter?

DR. MANTEY: Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified - yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of a pagan concept.

DR. MARTIN: What was their response to what you said?

DR. MANTEY: They said I could have my opinion and they would retain theirs. What I wrote didn't phase them a bit.

DR. MARTIN: I don't know whether you're aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn't tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology - except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there.

DR. MANTEY: He was born in Greece, wasn't he? 

DR. MARTIN: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, "How would you translate it?" He said: "Well, 'the word was a god."' I said: "What is the subject of the sentence?" He just looked at me. So I repeated, "What is the subject of the sentence?" He didn't know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn't know, the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours.

DR. MANTEY: That's right.

DR. MARTIN: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context?

DR. MANTEY: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that "the word was a god."

DR. MARTIN: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers."

DR. MANTEY: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!

DR. MARTIN: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth?

DR. MANTEY: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell.
Dr. Mantey hated the NWT! And I would think you would agree with his conclusions on it though maybe not his Greek.
Response #14:
I think I understand the argument – although this calls for me filling in some blanks inasmuch as the interviewer didn't ask the obvious question "how so?". In the Greek of John 1:1, . . . pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos . . ., one has 1) a close juxtaposition of theos for the Father (actually accusative following pros) and theos for the Son, separated only by the conjunction kai; and 2) the word theos is significantly placed first here in a most emphatic way. I believe I have pointed out the significance of both of these pieces of evidence elsewhere, but Mantey deserves his due even if the points are not fully articulated (it was an oral interview, after all). 

I don't know if I would put it quite as Mantey has in this sentence, but he was certainly correct in suggesting that if a person really wanted to say that Jesus was somehow lesser than the Father, this is exactly the opposite of the way one would go about it. John could have very easily put the second theos at the end of the clause instead of at the beginning. That way, he would have diminished the obvious connection between theos-theos as well as making the second theos, the one which refers to Jesus, far less emphatic. The issue here is thus one of emphasis and of connection, both of which are deliberately reinforced by the word order in a way which cannot be ignored. So it is not really a case of grammatical possibility/impossibility, but of clear meaning being conveyed by John, with every resource which Greek allows being employed by him in the process. I certainly agree with Mantey's conclusion and with his ire (even if I would wish to stress and express things a bit differently – for this only strengthens the value of his observations). For anyone to suggest that this passage does not equate Jesus with God betrays either a lack of facility with Greek or an agenda-driven disingenuousness. I don't see any other 
alternative.

So the supposed parallel of Acts 28:4 does really not apply when one understands the underpinning of Mantey's argument (and adds in the information I gave you in the previous e-mail about "A" and "[no indef. article]" being one and the same in Greek). In contrast to the indefinite use of phoneus in Acts 28:4 (i.e., "A murderer"), the use of theos in John 1:1 is clearly qualitative: i.e., emphasizing "God" as opposed meaning to "A god". The Greeks did this with the Persian king as well. All other definite kings were "the king" but he was "King" (just "basileus", no definite article: qualitative use as with John 1).

This fact of the meaning being "God" here is also made clear through the connection and definition of the two theos's. That is to say, without some sort of signal, no reader would assume that the word has significantly changed meaning in such a short span without some sort of re-definition (and if Christ is God on the same level as the Father, then it is entirely a moot point as to what plugging in "a" would mean). 

So the lack of a definite article is not sufficient to accomplish any re-definition of theos inasmuch as two persons are in view here and the omission of the article was necessary to show that the two persons are not identical. By way of contrast, Acts 28:4 is not contrasting Paul with any other murderer, real, imagined or ideal, and the word only occurs once in context, rendering the parallel entirely false. The word order is similar (your correspondent's point), but since it is not playing off of a previous clause where the meaning is defined, the emphasis lies entirely on the term, "a murderer" as opposed to what we might suppose, i.e., "an ordinary man". Whereas in John 1:1 we see the Logos defined by this emphatic placement and connection as "God" – and there was no more precise way for John to say it than he actually has. Clear to all native speakers at the time no doubt – and it should be clear enough even to English readers of any fair translation.

Hope this helps,

In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.
Question #15:
I have a question about Judges 14:8. Why would a swarm of bees make honey in a dead lion's mouth. I know that Samson was dedicated from his birth, a Nazarene. I know he is not a priest but why touch a dead animal with honey?
Response #15:
About the only way I can approach this is through typology. In terms of biblical symbolism, Samson and all Nazarites are typical of Christ even though Christ was not a Nazarite (link; and also see this link). Since this lion is hostile (i.e., not to be taken as a lion of Judah), we may possibly relate it to Satan the "roaring lion" who attacks believers (cf. attacking Christ's heel in Gen.3, albeit there as a serpent – note that Dan is both a serpent and a lion, and as a symbol of antichrist, that is significant: compare Gen.49:17 with Deut.32:22). So we may possibly see in the symbolism here Christ destroying Satan's power at the second advent – and out of the devil's world system replaced by Christ's kingdom comes the sweetest time of all ("milk and honey" being of course a very common way to describe not only the promised land of Moses' time but also the kingdom of Messiah).

In our Lord for whom nothing is impossible, our Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.
Question #16:
[omitted]
Response #16:
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
Acts 20:28 NIV
The word idios occurs something like a 100 times in the NT and is a very common Greek word – the English word "idiot" is derived from it (i.e., for the Athenians, someone who was "one's own person" was someone who didn't do their part in civic duties, and that was a big negative). There is absolutely nothing "idiomatic" (another word from the common idios = "one's own way of expression") about the usage in Acts 20:28. The word simply means "[one's] own" as in "belonging to the subject (grammatical or understood)" – that is, just exactly like our English "[one's] own". Whether it's his/hers/its/theirs, etc. depends on the context, just as in English. So it really is a question of who is the "own" here. 

In my analysis, it is really of little moment theologically, as I said, but "Church of God, which He [Jesus] purchased with His [i.e., has to be Jesus'] own blood" is the best translation/interpretation. 

One aside here: it is very, very typical of cults to take verses and words out of context, twisting their meanings, and claiming some "special use" rather than to see passages in the light of the context, the language as a whole, and the entire epistle/book/Bible – of course, because doing so always explodes their arguments "special use".

In Him. 

Bob L. 
Question #17:
Dr., __ thinks you are long-winded, beat about the bush, and don't really know the correct translation, either, of Acts 20:28. No surprise there! And that your "Trinitarian Bias" is showing!, LOL! I told him to take it up with you, and gave him your website address. The crux is this: "Church of God, which He [Jesus] purchased with His [i.e., has to be Jesus'] own blood" is the best translation/interpretation. " Does "God" here refer to Jesus, or the Father? That is what they have been arguing about. The nearest antecedent to "He" is "God", so what Trinies are saying is that this verse says Jesus is God, since we know the Father didn't shed any blood. That is what we are asking, and it's hard to say from the sentence. The church is usually referred to as Jesus', if I'm not mistaken. That He is head of the church. Hope that clarifies it. Thanks again. 
Response #17:
Thanks. I appreciate your good words and good work. One thing this fellow is certainly right
about is the part about me being long-winded anyway! And here I go again. 

Yes, I believe I understand the issue. Some trinitarians want to read only "God" here and say it refers to Jesus (Jesus = God). Others want to substitute "Lord" so that there will be "no problems" on that score with the verse. Your CD fellow wants to twist words entirely (in a way no other spoken language will allow) so that somehow it advances his agenda, hiding behind the general and growing ignorance of Greek. 

My point is that none of this was a problem for Paul (I stand by my translation: "Church of God, which He [Jesus] purchased with His [i.e., has to be Jesus'] own blood"): if we make a point of approaching God's Word on its own terms, not on the basis of our own preconceived theological frameworks, we inevitably "learn something". Here, we learn that our precise separation of Jesus and the Church on the one hand and God (the Father) on the other is apparently an idea that would never have occurred to the apostle Paul. The purposes of the Trinity are so seamlessly interwoven as to be one in every way (cf.: Jn.10:30: "I and the Father are One"; Deut.6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, He is our God, the Lord, He is One"). It is true that the Church is usually referred to as belonging to Christ – we are His bride, but we are also "the Church of the Living God" (1Tim.3:15). 

I suppose what I am objecting to here is the overall approach being used by some of your correspondents. To grow from the Bible, we must respond to it – it is God's Word. When we begin to dictate to the Bible, tell it what it may or may not mean on the basis of preconceived ideas (which may even be 90% correct), we lose an awful lot, not only the chance to be instructed on the particulars we face in any given situation, but also our responsiveness in general. As human beings, we engage in discourse to come to terms with political issues, for example, and that is understandable, since much of the "solution" in the political arena is to be determined by who and what we really are and what we really want and can reasonable be expected to get. 

Scripture isn't like this at all. Scripture is "God-breathed", and without the breath of the Spirit who gave it in the first place, without a responsive and open attitude to Him, we don't have a prayer of understanding it. That is why the early controversies of the organized church did little beyond establishing what the organized group would not accept (i.e., it was mainly politics imposed on scripture). The legacy of the creeds etc. was to send the organized church on a downward spiral, and burden it with restrictive interpretations (that often do not approach the 90% mark and in many cases close the door on entire areas of truth) under which almost all of the main-line denominations are still suffering today to one degree or another. There will always be heretics who don't care about God. I prefer to cast my lot with those who do want to know Him, genuinely (Ps.16:3). At this late and waning hour in the history of the Church, one would hope that true followers of Jesus would want to begin to devote themselves to finding out in as much detail as possible who and what God is, rather than contenting themselves with who and what He is not. 

What I mean to say is that the Spirit anxiously waits to show us so much in scripture, and too many of us are myopically focused upon "walling off" what we already think we understand. If we would let Him lead us through the Bible, we would find the brightness and brilliance of Jesus bursting forth into our hearts from every page! For we know of a certainty since we have it from our Lord's own lips that if we ask, we will receive, if we seek, we will find, and if we knock, He will open all things up for us, pouring forth His Spirit bountifully, enlightening our hearts, and leading us into the glorious light of all His truth (Lk.11:9-13). 

With all who are intent on seeking Him who is the way, the light and the truth. 

Yours, 

Bob Luginbill 
Question #18:
Hi Bob,

Do you have any explanation for the emphasis of the use of blue, purple and scarlet yarn in God's instructions through Exodus and Leviticus? I can think of a possible explanation for the symbology: the blending of Jewish and gentile in the family of God. But before I get off in the weeds again, I just wanted to check.

Also emphasized in the descriptions of sacrifices is burning flesh being an aroma pleasing to God. Is that a reference to the lake of fire in Revelation 20?

I pray all is well with you and yours and you had a happy Easter.

In our Lord,
Response #18:
It was a busy weekend mostly with "yard stuff". Trying to get that all in hand now that the semester is coming to an end in order to be able to concentrate on research (and exercise) this summer.

To take these in reverse, the "sweet savor" references in scripture refer to the cross. They represent the Father's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice (propitiation; see the link and read through section five to section six; also now in Hebrews at the link).

In terms of the symbolism of the colors, it depends on the context, but here is something I wrote about the inner layer of the tabernacle where these colors occur together:
An innermost layer of linen, blue (reflecting the heavenly origin of the only One who can give us access), purple (reflecting the royalty of the only One who can give us access), and scarlet (reflecting the sacrifice of the only One who can give us access). This layer was also embroidered with cherubim, symbolizing the holy abode of God, the third heaven lying above the firmament of sky and space (unreachable apart from Christ).
Hope you're doing well, my friend! I'm keeping you in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
Good evening sir.

My friend and I are reading through II Samuel. 23:5 is translated many ways.

NASB: Truly is not my house so with God?
For He has made an everlasting covenant with me,
Ordered in all things, and secured;
For all my salvation and all my desire,
Will He not indeed make it grow?

NKJV: Although my house is not so with God,
Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant,
Ordered in all things and secure.
For this is all my salvation and all my desire;
Will He not make it increase?

NIV: If my house were not right with God,
surely he would not have made with me an everlasting covenant,
arranged and secured in every part;
surely he would not bring to fruition my salvation
and grant me my every desire.

This in the context of verse 4 describing one who rules righteously: ... as the light of the morning when the sun rises, A morning without clouds, When the tender grass springs out of the earth,
Through sunshine after rain. (NASB)

The first line of the NASB and NKJV are complete opposites - I am inclined to think that the NASB has it correct because David was a good ruler (although he certainly had his moments). But I would appreciate your input with your background of textual analysis and language expertise.

Thanks very much,
Response #19: 
All three versions are reading the same text. The issue is one of interpretation. Is "ciy lo' cen" setting up a question (NASB), an adversative construction (NKJV), or a conditional (NIV)? All three are grammatically defensible if only because it's a problematic setup. 
I may have mentioned to you before that the books of Samuel are the most textually fraught of all the books of the Bible. S.R. Driver (whom I believe I mentioned to you before), agrees with your take as well (the "so/thus" looks back then to what has just been said). Questions which are not preceded by question words are often difficult to notice in all ancient literature, but I do think that is the correct way to take this verse. 
The one change I would make (which none of the versions I consulted see), is to say "will be" instead of "is", since David is looking to the future. So this is a Messianic reference: all this will be true in full when David's greater Son, Jesus Christ, reigns.

In Him,

Bob L.
Question #20:
Missed the forest for the trees! Thank you for mentioning this being a Messianic reference. I often miss things that are not stated straight out, but this is just plain obvious. Especially as he mentions the everlasting covenant. And the fact of Jesus being the ending fulfillment of that covenant is such a basic point of the Bible... I see it now quite clearly.

Thanks very much as always,
Response #20:
My pleasure!

Happy to help.

In Jesus our Messiah,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/