The Religion That Started in a Hat

August 27, 2022 · 6:54 pm

What is an Abomination?

What is an Abomination? by Jack Kettler

In this study, the word abomination will be considered as to its meaning, along with its Old and New Testaments usage and the Hebrew and Greek word origins. A commentary on the Old Testament and a New Testament commentary will be consulted. A concise overview of the word abomination will come from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Finally, the study will conclude with a definition from two sources, one contemporary, and the other classic.

“The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination (תּוֹעֲבַ֣ת) to the LORD, But the words of the pure are pleasant.” (Proverbs 15:26)

Strong’s Lexicon:

“detests

תּוֹעֲבַ֣ת (tō·w·‘ă·ḇaṯ)

Noun – feminine singular construct

Strong’s Hebrew 8441: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable 1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) 1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc.)”

From the Pulpit Commentary on Proverbs 15:26:

“Verse 26. – The thoughts of the wicked (or, evil devices) are an abomination to the Lord. Although the Decalogue, by forbidding coveting, showed that God’s Law touched the thought of the heart as well as the outward action, the idea here refers to wicked plans or designs, rather than emphatically to the secret movements of the mind. These have been noticed in ver. 11. But the words of the pure are pleasant words; literally, pure are words of pleasantness; i.e. words of soothing, comforting tone are, not an abomination to the Lord, as are the devices of the wicked, but they are pure in a ceremonial sense, as it were, a pure and acceptable offering. Revised Version, pleasant words are pure. Vulgate, “Speech pure and pleasant is approved by him” – which is a paraphrase of the clause. Septuagint, “The words of the pure are honoured (σεμναί).” Proverbs 15:26” (1)

“And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination (βδέλυγμα) in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15)

Strong’s Lexicon:

“[is] detestable

βδέλυγμα (bdelygma)

Noun – Nominative Neuter Singular

Strong’s Greek 946: An abominable thing, an accursed thing. From bdelusso; a detestation, i.e. idolatry.”

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Luke 16:15:

“(15) Ye are they which justify yourselves before men. — The character described is portrayed afterwards more fully in the parable of Luke 18:9-14. The word there used, “this man went down to his house justified rather than the other,” is obviously a reference to what is reported here. They forgot, in their self-righteousness and self-vindication, that they stood before God as the Searcher of all hearts.

That which is highly esteemed among men . . .—Literally, that which is high, or lifted up, among men. The word is at once wider and more vivid than the English.

Abomination . . .—The word is the same as in “the abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15), that which causes physically nausea and loathing. The word seems chosen as the expression of a divine scorn and indignation, which answered, in part, to their “derision,” and was its natural result. (Comp. the bold language of Psalm 2:4, Proverbs 1:26, Revelation 3:16.)” (2)

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a summary of abomination:

ABOMINATION

“a-bom-i-na’-shun (piggul, to`ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Genesis 43:32; Genesis 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.”

“The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to`ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Genesis 46:34). The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.”

“Among the objects described in the Old Testament as “abominations” in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the “abominations” of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively (2 Kings 23:13), and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: “Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo, to`ebhah, to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?” (Exodus 8:26).”

“It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an “abomination,” for it “is an abomination to Yahweh thy God” (Deuteronomy 7:25, 26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: `Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (cherem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart’ (tabooed). To`ebhah is even used as synonymous with “idol” or heathen deity, as in Isaiah 44:19 Deuteronomy 32:16 2 Kings 23:13; and especially Exodus 8:22.”

“Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination to`ebhah; as are sexual transgressions (Deuteronomy 22:5; Deuteronomy 23:18; Deuteronomy 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you” (Leviticus 18:27; compare Ezekiel 8:15). It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where “divers measures, a great and a small,” are forbidden (Deuteronomy 25:14-16); and in Proverbs where “lying lips” (Proverbs 12:22), “the proud in heart” (Proverbs 16:5), “the way of the wicked” (Proverbs 15:9), “evil devices” (Proverbs 15:26), and “he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous” (Proverbs 17:15), are said to be an abomination in God’s sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: `Bring no more an oblation of falsehood-an incense of abomination it is to me’ (Isaiah 1:13; compare Jeremiah 7:10). “The sacrifice of the wicked” and the prayer of him “that turneth away his ear from hearing the law,” are equally an abomination (see Proverbs 15:8; Proverbs 21:27; Proverbs 28:9).”

“Another word rendered “abomination” in the King James Version is sheqets or shiqquts. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than [to`ebhah], but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In Deuteronomy 14:3, for example, we have the command, “Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing,” as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS), and the word there used is [to`ebhah]. But in Leviticus 11:10-13, 20, 23, 41, 42, Isaiah 66:17; and in Ezekiel 8:10 sheqets is the word used and likewise applied to the prohibited animals; as also in Leviticus 11:43 sheqets is used when it is commanded, “Ye shall not make yourselves abominable.” Then sheqets is often used parallel to or together with to`ebhah of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially Deuteronomy 29:17 Hosea 9:10 Jeremiah 4:1; Jeremiah 13:27; Jeremiah 16:18 Ezekiel 11:18-21; Ezekiel 20:7, 8). It is used exactly as [to`ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheqets of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5). Still even in such cases to`ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.”

“The other word used to express a somewhat kindred idea of abhorrence and translated “abomination” in the King James Version is piggul; but it is used in the Hebrew Bible only of sacrificial flesh that has become stale, putrid, tainted (see Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 19:7 Ezekiel 4:14 Isaiah 65:4). Driver maintains that it occurs only as a “technical term for such state sacrificial flesh as has not been eaten within the prescribed time,” and, accordingly, he would everywhere render it specifically “refuse meat.” Compare lechem megho’al, “the loaths ome bread” (from ga’al, “to loathe”) Malachi 1:7. A chief interest in the subject for Christians grows out of the use of the term in the expression “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14), which see.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

August 19, 2022 · 4:35 am

A primer regarding a doctrinal debate among Reformation Churches

A primer regarding a doctrinal debate among Reformation Churches by Jack Kettler

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Colossians 3:16)

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament:

“16 Let the ho word logos of ho Christ Christos dwell enoikeō in en you hymeis richly plousiōs as you teach didaskō and kai admonish noutheteō one heautou another with en all pas wisdom sophia by means of psalms psalmos, hymns hymnos, and spiritual pneumatikos songs ōdē, singing adō with en · ho gratitude charis in en · ho your hymeis heart kardia to ho God theos.”

Does Colossians 3:16 support the use of uninspired hymns? As will be seen, the Bible contains examples of triadic expressions or synonymous usages that will help answer this question. For instance, in Exodus 34:7, one reads about iniquity, transgression, and sin. These three terms are synonymous or fundamentally the same. Said another way, a word has the same or practically the same meaning as another word in the identical language. A triadic repetition of language can be used for emphasis.

Examples of synonymous threefold repetition in Scripture:

· Commandments, statutes, and laws (Gen. 26:5; c.f. Deut. 30:16)

· Iniquity, transgression, and sin (Ex. 34:7)

· Statutes, judgments, and laws (Lev. 26:46)

· Commandments, statutes, and judgments (Deut 5:31; 6:1)

· Anger, wrath, and indignation (Psa. 78:49)

· Heart, soul, and mind (Mat. 22:37; c.f. Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27)

· Miracles, wonders, and signs (Acts 2:22)

· Good, acceptable, and perfect (Rom. 12:2)

· Signs, wonders, and mighty deeds (2 Cor. 12:12)

· Supplications, prayers, intercessions (1 Tim. 2:1)

The following part of the text is where disagreements arise:

Psalms (Psalmos), hymns (Humnos), and spiritual songs (Odee) (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)

The promoters of uninspired hymns only see Psalmos and not Humnos and Odee referringto the Psalms in Paul’s use of the terms. In this view, hymns and songs can be understood as being of human composition. Does this hold up?

Consider the following citation where these three terms are used in the book of Psalms.

Michael Bushell gives more specifics on the use of the three terms throughout Scripture:

“Psalmos…occurs some 87 times in the Septuagint, some 78 of which are in the Psalms themselves, and 67 times in the psalm titles. It also forms the title to the Greek version of the psalter…. Humnos…occurs some 17 times in the Septuagint, 13 of which are in the Psalms, six times in the titles. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles, and Nehemiah there are some 16 examples in which the Psalms are called ‘hymns’ (humnoi) or ‘songs’ (odai) and the singing of them is called ‘hymning’ (humneo, humnodeo, humnesis) …. Odee…occurs some 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles… In twelve Psalm titles we find both ‘psalm’ and ‘song’; and, in two others we find ‘psalm’ and ‘hymn.’ Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song.’ And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. 72:20).” (1)

Comments:

The texts where the terms “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual-songs” from Ephesians and Colossians appear are not a problem for the Psalm-Singing churches. The words “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are used interchangeably in the Psalms, referring to the Psalms themselves. Someone may ask, why Paul didn’t use one word instead of three. That is because, in the Psalms themselves, these three words appear numerous times interchangeable. Moreover, the triadic threefold repetition is for emphasis. As an aside, and noteworthy is how Paul’s triadic language in Ephesians and Colossians parallels the New Testament formulation of the Trinity, God as Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Objections:

It has been said that one is not singing the Psalms unless one is singing them in the original Hebrew. Really? An argument about singing in Hebrew sounds similar to the Muslims saying that one is not reading the Koran unless it is read in Arabic. Furthermore, this assertion does not address the above argument from Bushell.

Consistency?

Is the pastor reading the Word of God unless it is done in the original language? If not, how can it be justified not to read the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek? An argument like this fails for lack of consistency.

Does exclusive psalmody create divisions in Christ’s Church? Does the practice of pedo-baptism? Does the observance of the regulative principle of worship? Does the preaching of the Doctrines of Grace create divisions? The first question in this series of questions is not a refutation of exclusive Psalm-singing.

Are the Psalm-Singing churches in sin by using only the Psalms? This writer is still waiting for a reply to this question. Are Psalm singing churches missing out? Missing out on what is a retort. Is there something superior to the Psalms? What would that be? What songbook did Jesus use? The answer is the Psalms. Should believers follow the example of our Lord? If not, why not? Nothing in the New Testament sets aside the Psalms as a songbook for Christ’s Church.

What about singing other portions of the Scriptures? While it would not be wrong per se, there is no command in Scripture to do so, like in Ephesians 5:19; and Colossians 3:16. The question about singing other portions of Scripture does not invalidate following Christ’s example of singing the Psalms.

The preeminence of the King in Israel’s worship of God was an important practice. Not only did David direct the people singing songs in worship, but this pattern also applies to David’s Greater Son, who is the Lord. Jesus is our King and is seated at the right hand of the Father. The apostle Paul makes the statement that during worship, believers are seated with Christ in heaven, specifically; “and made us sit together in heavenly places” Ephesians 2:6. Jesus, our King, is enthroned at the Father’s right hand, and we, through our union with Him, are led in heavenly worship by the King Jesus; “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” Hebrews 2:12.

Jesus is our Kingly choirmaster in the heavenly and leads us in singing praises to the Father. The Psalms are profitable for doctrine, but they also testify of Christ. As said, they are, in fact, the songbook Jesus used to worship the Father. The Psalms were composed for Jesus as our perfect King and song leader.

The issue is Biblical sufficiency:

Reformed Churches are committed to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Psalms are Scripture. Therefore, the Psalms are sufficient. A conclusion can be drawn, and since the Psalms are Scripture and sufficient, the Psalm singing churches are not missing out. Moreover, there is no command to sing uninspired songs in worship. Would it be permissible to preach from uninspired sources? Consistency is helpful.

Without a doubt, there have been some extraordinary human songs composed. Human-composed songs can be used outside of worship, for example, Christmas caroling. Christmas caroling would be similar to street preaching. When it comes to human-composed hymns, one must always evaluate if the human composition is faithful to Scripture. Many modern human compositions are used in worship; all that seemingly matters is if it flows with the instrumentation and the lines can be repeated several times for emotional emphasis. Some of the modern compositions are so nebulous that non-Christian religions could use them.

The reader is urged to study the topic of this debate by using Michael Bushell’s monumental work titled the Songs of Zion.

Bushell asks, what music does God want His people to sing in worship?

He asks:

“The question provokes strong emotions, but the answer must be solely based on Scripture. We live in a culture where personal preference dominates, where men recoil from the full display of God’s mercy and justice, and where the winds of fancy blow about a church ignorant of her history. This book calls the reader to prostrate himself before a thrice holy God, to echo His tender and fearsome Words in song, and to return to the historical worship practice of the Christian church.”

The publisher writes:

“The most comprehensive contemporary work on exclusive psalmody now interacts with more recent scholarship, answering those who critique singing only psalms in worship. Like previous editions, it examines the sufficiency and propriety of the Psalter, the testimony of Scripture, the regulative principle, and the testimony of history. In the fourth edition there is a new Bibliography and new subject and author indices.”

Presbyterian denominations practicing exclusive psalmody:

American Presbyterian Church

Associated Presbyterian Churches

Australian Free Church

Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Australia

Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)

Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia

Presbyterian Reformed Church

Reformation Presbyterian Church, Australian Presbytery

Reformed Presbyterian churches

Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia

Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland

Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Reformed Presbyterian Church of Malawi

Southern Presbyterian Church in Australia

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

Igreja Puritana Reformada no Brasil (Puritan Reformed Church in Brazil)

Pilgrim Covenant Church (Singapore)

Dutch Reformed denominations practicing exclusive psalmody:

Free Reformed Churches of North America

Gereja Jemaat Protestan di Indonesia

Heritage Reformed Congregations

Netherlands Reformed Congregations

Nigeria Reformed Church

Old-Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands (Oud Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland)

Old-Reformed Congregations (unconnected) (Oud Gereformeerde Gemeenten buiten verband)

Reformed Congregations (Gereformeerde Gemeenten)

Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland)

Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands (unconnected) (Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (buiten verband))

Reformed Congregations in North America

Restored Reformed Church (Hersteld Hervormde Kerk) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reformation leader John Calvin on Psalm singing:

“Now what Saint Augustine says is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from Him. Wherefore, when we have looked thoroughly everywhere and searched high and low, we shall find no better songs nor more appropriate to the purpose than the Psalms of David which the Holy Spirit made and spoke through him. And furthermore, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths, as if He Himself were singing in us to exalt His glory.” – John Calvin, Epistle to the Reader, Genevan Psalter (1542)

A noteworthy observation:

“Wherever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian Church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Although not dealing with the subject matter of the above primer, Bonhoeffer’s Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible is a must-read.

Bonhoeffer’s publisher writes:

“Jesus died with a psalm on his lips. For millennia, humans have been shaped by the Psalms. And before the Nazis banned him from publishing, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer published this book on the Psalms.”

“What comfort is found in the Psalter? What praise, and what challenge? What threat? In the pages of Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible, discover the richness this book of Scripture held for Bonhoeffer, and learn to pray psalms along with Christ.”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Michael Bushell, Songs of Zion, (Norfolk Press, Norfolk Virginia), pp. 217-218.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

August 14, 2022 · 1:05 pm

What does the Apostle Paul mean by dogs in Philippians 3:2?

What does the Apostle Paul mean by dogs in Philippians 3:2? by Jack Kettler

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more.” (Philippians 3:2-4)

The Jews frequently called the Gentiles dogs, primarily due to their ceremonial uncleanness. Does Paul affirm or repudiate this classification?

Who are “the dogs” and “the concision” mentioned in the Philippians passage?

Two commentary entries will be consulted to answer these two questions.

First, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

“(2) Beware of (the) dogs. — In Revelation 22:15 “the dogs” excluded from the heavenly Jerusalem seem to be those who are impure. In that sense the Jews applied the word to the heathen, as our Lord, for a moment appearing to follow the Jewish usage, does to the Syro-Phœnician woman in Matthew 15:26. But here the context appropriates the word to the Judaising party, who claimed special purity, ceremonial and moral, and who probably were not characterised by peculiar impurity—such as, indeed, below (Philippians 3:17-21) would seem rather to attach to the Antinomian party, probably the extreme on the other side. Chrysostom’s hint that the Apostle means to retort the name upon them, as now by their own wilful apostasy occupying the place outside the spiritual Israel which once belonged to the despised Gentiles, is probably right. Yet perhaps there may be some allusion to the dogs, not as unclean, but as, especially in their half-wild state in the East, snarling and savage, driving off as interlopers all who approach what they consider their ground. Nothing could better describe the narrow Judaising spirit.”

“Of evil workers. — Comp. 2Corinthians 11:13, describing the Judaisers as “deceitful workers.” Here the idea is of their energy in work, but work for evil.”

“The concision. — By an ironical play upon words St. Paul declares his refusal to call the circumcision, on which the Judaisers prided themselves, by that time-honoured name; for “we,” he says, “are the true circumcision,” the true Israel of the new covenant. In Ephesians 2:11 (where see Note) he had denoted it as the “so-called circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” Here he speaks more strongly, and calls it a “concision,” a mere outward mutilation, no longer, as it had been, a “seal” of the covenant (Romans 4:11). There is a still more startling attack on the advocates of circumcision in Galatians 5:12 (where see Note).” (1)

Second, the Pulpit Commentary:

“Verse 2. – Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. The connection is, as given in ver. 3, Rejoice in the Lord, not in the flesh; have confidence in him, not in the ceremonies of the Jewish Law. Compare the same contrast in Galatians 6:13, 14. There is certainly something abrupt in the sudden introduction of this polemic against Judaizing, especially in writing to Philippi, where there were not many Jews. But there may have been circumstances, unknown to us, which made the warning necessary; or, as some think, the apostle may have written this under excitement caused by the violent opposition of the Jewish faction at Rome. Beware; literally, mark, observe them, to be on your guard against them. The dogs. The article must be retained in the translation. The Jews called the Gentiles “dogs” (comp. Matthew 15:26, 27; Revelation 22:15), i.e. unclean, mainly because of their disregard of the distinction between clean and unclean food. St. Paul retorts the epithet: they are the dogs, who have confidence in the flesh, not in spiritual religion. Evil workers; so, 2 Corinthians 11:13, where he calls them “deceitful workers.” The Judaizers were active enough, like the Pharisees who “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte;” but their activity sprang from bad motives – they were evil workers, though their work was sometimes overruled for good (comp. Philippians 1:15-18). The concision (κατατομή, cutting, mutilation); a contemptuous word for “circumcision” (περιτομή). Compare the Jewish contemptuous use of Isbosheth, man of shame, for Eshbaal, man of Baal, etc. Their circumcision is no better than a mutilation. Observe the paronomasia, the combination of like-sounding words, which is common in St. Paul’s Epistles. Winer gives many examples in sect. lxviii. Philippians 3:2” (2)

Vincent’s Word Studies also provides some salient insights:

“Beware (βλέπετε)

Lit., look to. Compare Mark 4:24; Mark 8:15; Luke 21:8.”

Dogs

“Rev., correctly, the dogs, referring to a well-known party – the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Savior of Israel only. They insisted that Christ’s kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the history of the Church, and are those referred to in Acts 15:1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. “‘Paul must be destroyed,’ was as truly their watchword as the cry for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator” (Stanley, “Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age”). These are referred to in Philippians 1:16; and the whole passage in the present chapter, from Philippians 3:3 to Philippians 3:11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen: “Brother-in-law of me, a mischief devising dog” (“Iliad,” vi., 344). Teucer of Hector: “I cannot hit this raging dog” (“Iliad,” viii., 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns: “They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one’s way over and amongst them – a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this reference to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances” (“Land and Book,” Central palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Psalm 59:6; Psalm 22:16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to denote what was unholy or profane. So, Matthew 7:6; Revelation 22:15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow: Deuteronomy 23:18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated “dogs” by the Jews, see Matthew 15:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.”

Evil workers

Compare deceitful workers, 2 Corinthians 11:13.

Concision (κατατομήν)

“Only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb occurs in the Septuagint only, of mutilations forbidden by the Mosaic law. See Leviticus 21:5. The noun here is a play upon περιτομή circumcision. It means mutilation. Paul bitterly characterizes those who were not of the true circumcision (Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29; Colossians 2:11; Ephesians 2:11) as merely mutilated. Compare Galatians 5:12, where he uses ἀποκόπτειν to cut off, of those who would impose circumcision upon the Christian converts: “I would they would cut themselves off who trouble you;” that is, not merely circumcise, but mutilate themselves like the priests of Cybele.” (3)

As seen from the above citations, Paul uses a play upon words by calling the Judaizers “dogs” and also calls them those who mutilate the flesh or the “concision.”

In closing:

The Amplified Bible captures Paul’s nuances of language accurately:

“Look out for the [a]dogs [the Judaizers, the legalists], look out for the troublemakers, look out for the [b]false circumcision [those who claim circumcision is necessary for salvation]; for we [who are born-again have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, set apart for His purpose and] are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory and take pride and exult in Christ Jesus and place no confidence [in what we have or who we are] in the flesh— though I myself might have [some grounds for] confidence in the flesh [if I were pursuing salvation by works]. If anyone else thinks that he has reason to be confident in the flesh [that is, in his own efforts to achieve salvation], I have far more.” (Philippians 3:2-4)

Footnotes

“Philippians 3:2 Jews often used “dogs” as a derogatory term to refer to Gentiles, so Paul’s reference to his Jewish opponents in this verse is ironic. Most dogs were untamed scavengers and considered disgusting because they ate anything.”

“Philippians 3:2 Because circumcision was not necessary for salvation, the circumcision demanded by the Judaizers was nothing more than mutilation.”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Philippians, Vol.8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 80.

2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Philippians, Vol. 20., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 111.

3. Marvin R. Vincent, “Word Studies In The New Testament,” (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 442-443.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

August 3, 2022 · 6:09 pm

What are the stones mentioned in Isaiah 54:11?

What are the stones mentioned in Isaiah 54:11? by Jack Kettler

“O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.” (Isaiah 54:11 KJV)

What are the “stones” mentioned in this passage?

Does the symbolism in this passage look forward to Heavenly New Jerusalem?

Nine parallel translations

New International Version

“Afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted, I will rebuild you with stones of turquoise, your foundations with lapis lazuli. (Underlining emphasis mine)

English Standard Version

“O afflicted one, storm-tossed and not comforted, behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and lay your foundations with sapphires.

New King James Version

“O you afflicted one, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems, and lay your foundations with sapphires.

New American Standard Bible

“Afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, And I will lay your foundations with sapphires.

NASB 1995

“O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and your foundations I will lay in sapphires.

NASB 1977

“O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, And your foundations I will lay in sapphires.

Amplified Bible

“O you afflicted [city], storm-tossed, and not comforted, listen carefully, I will set your [precious] stones in mortar, and lay your foundations with sapphires.

Christian Standard Bible

“Poor Jerusalem, storm-tossed, and not comforted, I will set your stones in black mortar, and lay your foundations in lapis lazuli.

American Standard Version

O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will set thy stones in fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.

In five of the nine parallel passages, the word antimony is use. What is antimony? First, the Strong’s Lexicon will be consulted to gain an understanding of the Hebrew word for stones.

Strong’s Lexicon:

“your stones

אֲבָנַ֔יִךְ (’ă·ḇā·na·yiḵ)

Noun – feminine plural construct | second person feminine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 68: 1) stone (large or small) 1a) common stone (in natural state) 1b) stone, as material 1b1) of tablets 1b2) marble, hewn stones 1c) precious stones, stones of fire 1d) stones containing metal (ore), tool for work or weapon 1e) weight 1f) plummet (stones of destruction) also made of metal 1g) stone like objects, eg hailstones, stony heart, ice 1h) sacred object, as memorial Samuel set up to mark where God helped Israel to defeat the Philistines 1i) (simile) 1i1) sinking in water, motionlessness 1i2) strength, firmness, solidity 1i3) commonness 1j) (metaph) 1j1) petrified with terror 1j2) perverse, hard heart”

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the word Stones:

“STONE, STONES

ston, stonz:

1. Hebrew and Greek Words:

(1) Chiefly ‘ebhen, and lithos; but also, occurring rarely, ‘eshekh (Leviticus 21:20); tsur (Job 22:24), usually “rock”; tseror (2 Samuel 17:13); petros (John 1:42); psephos (Revelation 2:17). For cela`, usually “cliff,” “crag,” “rock,” the King James Version, in Psalms 137:9; 141:6, has “stone,” but the Revised Version (British and American) “rock.” For the King James Version “stones,” cheres (Job 41:30), the Revised Version (British and American) has “potsherds.”

See SELA.

2. Literal Usage:

The word is used of great stones (Genesis 29:2); of small stones (1 Samuel 17:40); of stones set up as memorials (1 Samuel 7:12, “Eben-ezer,” “stone of help”); of precious stones (Exodus 35:9, etc.); of hailstones (Joshua 10:11).

3. Figurative Usage:

Of hardness:

“I will take the stony heart out of their flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19); of one smitten: “(Nabal’s) heart died within him, and became as a stone” (1 Samuel 25:37); of weight: “A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty” (Proverbs 27:3); of dumbness: “Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise!” (Habakkuk 2:19); of Jerusalem: “I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples” (Zechariah 12:3); of the corner-stone as a figure of high position:

“The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner” (Psalms 118:22).

See FLINT; ROCK.

(2) Used also anatomically of the testicles (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1; Job 40:17, pachadh, the Revised Version (British and American) “thighs”).” Alfred Ely Day (1)

Under point number 3, the figurative usage of stones best applies to the Isaiah 54:11.

Now for an understanding of antimony.

Holman Bible Dictionary for Antimony:

“(uhn’ tih moh nih) A silvery-white, brittle, metalic chemical element of crystalline structure, found only in combination. It is used in alloys with other metals to harden them and increase their resistance to chemical actions. Compounds of antimony are used in medicines, pigments, matches, and fireproofing. In the NRSV and the NAS antimony is used as a translation of the Hebrew terms abne-puk to describe the materials used to build the Temple (1 Chronicles 29:2; see Isaiah 54:11; NIV has turquoise; REB and TEV stones for mosaic work; KJV, glistering stones and stones with fair colors, respectively). It is likely that abne-puk refers to some sort of cement or mortar used in the creation of mosaics, which it is suggested, would make precious stones appear larger and more colorful. In two other passages (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30), puk is consistently translated as eye paint. One of Job’s daughters was named Keren-hapuk—that is, “horn of eye paint” (Job 42:14).” (2)

It can be gleaned from the Isaiah passage that antimony is a special type of black mortar that has a striking appearance. This is because the antinomy or mortar secured the stones in place.

Is there a spiritual or figurative sense of how to understand the significance of the stones?

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges captures several points of the Isaiah passage well:

“11, 12. The outward splendour of the new Jerusalem described in highly figurative language; comp. Tob 13:16-17; Revelation 21:18-21.

I will lay thy stones with fair colours] lit. in antimony (R.V. marg.). Antimony (pûkh) was used by Oriental females as an eye-powder to blacken the edges of the eyelids and enhance the lustre of the eyes (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30; comp. the name of Job’s third daughter, Keren-hap-pukh, ‘horn of eye-powder,’ Job 42:14. see further Lane, Manners and Customs, &c. ed. 1890, pp. 29 ff.). In the figure the antimony would represent the costly mortar used to set off the brilliancy of the still more costly stones. The ἄνθρακα of the LXX. seems to stand for נפך (instead of פוך), a kind of precious stone; see Exodus 28:18 &c. In 1 Chronicles 29:2, where we read of “stones of pûkh” (R.V. “stones for inlaid work”) prepared for the Temple, the idea must be different; but whether that passage has any connexion with the present image is doubtful.

I will lay thy foundations (lit. “I will be found thee”) with sapphires] Exodus 24:10; Ezekiel 1:26.” (3)

In closing:

The following entry will look at the spiritual meaning of the stones and what they foreshadowed.

From J. C. Philpot‘s Daily Portions:

“July 11

“Behold, I will lay your stones with fair colors.” Isaiah 54:11

By these “stones,” which the Lord has promised to “lay with fair colors,” I think we may understand the blessed truths of the gospel which are laid into the soul by the hand of God. The fair colors are deeply ingrained and embedded in the very substance of the stone, not artificially laid on. They are like beautiful marbles, in which every bright hue and vein penetrate into the deepest substance of the material. Such are the truths of God, beautiful throughout, penetrated with grace and glory into their inmost depths.

But these colors are hidden from view until brought out and laid into the soul by the hand of God. However fair or beautiful any word of God be in itself, it only experimentally becomes so as inlaid by his own divine hand into the soul. This brings out the fair colors. How often we read the word of God without seeing the least beauty in it! But let the very same portion come home with sweetness and power to the soul, then beauty, inexpressible beauty, is seen in it immediately; it becomes “a stone of fair colors.” Salvation full and free, the pardoning love of God, the precious blood of the Lamb, justification by Christ’s imputed righteousness, “wine and milk without money and without price,” super-abounding grace, eternal mercy, everlasting life–these are some of the precious stones with fair colors which God the Spirit with his own hand lays into the conscience.”

“July 12

“I will lay your foundations with sapphires.” Isaiah 54:11

Before we can stand firmly in the things of God we must have a good foundation, something solid for our faith, our hope, our love, our all, to rest upon. This God promises to lay for his afflicted Zion–“I will lay your foundations with sapphires.” “A gift,” we read, “is a precious stone in the eyes of him that has it.” Every testimony, then, that God gives to the soul, every promise brought into the heart, every manifestation of mercy, every visit of love, or application of truth, we may call, in a spiritual sense, a sapphire; for it is indeed a precious stone, radiant with heaven’s own hue. When God thus lays his sapphires in the soul, they afford a solid foundation for faith. And as they are laid by the hand of God himself, they must be firm; as they are sapphires, they must be indestructible.

These sapphires, it is true, may every one of them be buried in the dust of carnality and worldly-mindedness; the filth and sewage, the mud and slush, of our fallen nature may roll over them flood after flood. But are they injured thereby? is their nature changed, their value impaired, their hue tarnished, their luster faded and gone? They may be hidden from view, their setting be obscured, and their faces for a while be dimmed, but one ray from the Sun of righteousness will bring them again to light; one touch of the Polisher’s hand will restore all their beauty. Grace has no more communion with sin than a diamond with an ash-heap.” (4)

The Puritan John Gill’s entry is similar to Philpot’s. Gill predated Philpot by approximately 100 years.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

“O thou afflicted, tossed with tempests, and not comforted, … Or, “O thou poor” (s) church; for the first Christian churches chiefly consisted of poor persons, not many mighty and noble being called; and which were greatly “afflicted” with false teachers, who broached errors and heresies, and made schisms among them; and “tossed with tempests” like a ship at sea; or “stormed” (t) with the rage and fury of violent persecutors, such as the Roman emperors were; and not “comforted”, having none to administer any external comfort or relief to them; none of the kings or princes of the earth, or any civil magistrate to protect and defend them; what comfort they had was internal and spiritual; what they had from Christ and his Spirit, and by the word and ordinances; or rather this may describe the state of the church under Papal tyranny and persecution, which brings it nearer to the times of peace and prosperity after promised:

behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours; or, “with paint” (u); such as women used to paint their faces or eyes with, 2 Kings 9:30. The Targum is,

“behold, I will lay with paint the stones of thy pavement;”’

and the words seem plainly to design the stones of a pavement, and perhaps by an hypallage or transposition may be rendered,

I will lay thy pavement with glistering stones; so the word is translated 1 Chronicles 29:2 or, “with stones of paint” (w); which are of the colour of the “stibium”, or paint before mentioned, and which was of a black colour; and Aben Ezra says the word here signifies a precious stone of a black colour; perhaps black marble is meant, a stone fit for pavements; but, be these stones what they will, they design in the spiritual sense the materials of a Gospel church, those “lively stones” which

are built up a spiritual house, and which are beautified with the gifts and graces of the Spirit of God; and may also denote that the lowest and meanest of the Lord’s people, pointed out by stones of the pavement, should be thus adorned:

and lay thy foundations with sapphires; a precious stone of a white colour, according to R. Saadiah Gaon; but, according to Aben Ezra, of a red colour; though the sapphire is usually said to be of a sky colour, shining with specks of gold. The Targum renders it, “with precious stones”; and so the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem is said to be garnished with all manner of precious stones, Revelation 21:19, this may respect Christ, the sure foundation God has laid in Zion, the foundation of the apostles and prophets; the one and only foundation of the church of Christ, and all true believers, who is more precious than sapphires, or all the most precious stones; he always has been the foundation of his church in all ages; but the meaning is, that he shall now appear most clearly and manifestly to be the foundation, and to be a firm, rich, and glorious one; see Exodus 24:10.” (5)

Both Philpot and Gill understand that the afflicted people mentioned in the passage are given hope by Isaiah as he projects forward to the church age with its millennial blessing typified by the imagery of the heavenly New Jerusalem. The stones foreshadow the Lord Jesus Christ, who is “The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner.” (Psalms 118:22).

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, (“Entry for ‘STONE, STONES’”, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915).

2. Butler, Trent C. Editor, Entry for ‘Antimony’, Holman Bible Dictionary.

3. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, John Skinner, Isaiah, vol. 1, 2 Volume 20 of (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

4. Philpot’s Daily Portions: Daily Readings for Christians.

5. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Isaiah, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 865.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 30, 2022 · 3:49 pm

What is Levirate marriage in Scripture?

What is Levirate marriage in Scripture? by Jack Kettler

The following Scripture citations give a glimpse of levirate marriage.

“And Judah said unto Onan, go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” (Genesis 38:8)

“Saying, Master, Moses said, if a man dies having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” (Matthew 22:24)

“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)

How exactly is levirate marriage defined?

“Levirate, custom or law decreeing that a widow should, or in rare cases must, marry her dead husband’s brother. The term comes from the Latin levir, meaning “husband’s brother.” The “brother” may be a biological sibling of the deceased or a person who is socially classified as such.” – The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The most well-known example of levirate marriage in Scripture is that of Ruth and Boaz. Ruth’s original husband died without a child, see (Ruth 1:1-5). As a result, God sovereignly directs Ruth to meet a wealthy landowner named Boaz. Boaz was a relative of Ruth’s late husband, see (Ruth 2:20). Ruth asked Boaz to be her kinsman-redeemer, which he did, thus fulfilling the levirate custom.

More importantly, Ruth bore a son named Obed, who fathered Jesse, the father of David and a forefather of Jesus (see Matthew 1:5-6). Moreover, God showed His favor in this Old Testament practice by including Boaz and Ruth in the lineage of Christ.

Levirate marriage is not practiced today in modern Judaism or Christianity. However, the practice was connected to the time when Israel was in the promised land, and genealogies were important, especially in regard to how Israelites passed on their land inheritance to their children. Establishing one’s lineage was a type of land deed. Whether the levirate marriage was commanded by God or a custom is unclear. According to Deuteronomy 25:5, the levirate marriage practice seemed to be part of the civil law and, therefore, expired in the New Covenant.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 23, 2022 · 4:04 pm

What is the sin that is unto death?

What is the sin that is unto death? by Jack Kettler

“If any man sees his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” (1 John 5:16)

1. What is a sin unto death?

2. Can this sin be identified by one who is committing it or observing it?

3. Can a Christian commit this sin?

The passage from 1 John has been one of the more difficult texts to interpret.

Some distinctions:

First, the Apostle addresses a sin that is not unto death and can be committed by a brother, 5:16a.

Second, 1 John 5:16a involves prayer. 1 John 5:16b seemingly does not include prayer.

The following observation may help to answer the second question:

1 John 5:16a is regarding a brother. However, 1 John 5:16b seemingly does not have a brother in view.

Many expositors and commentators have noted these distinctions.

One possible interpretation:

Is 1 John 5:16 the same as blaspheming against the Spirit seen in Matthew 12:31?

In Matthew 12:31, blasphemy against the Spirit is mentioned. Is this blasphemy a sin unto death? Is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of filled with the Spirit? Blasphemy of this nature seems probable. The standard interpretation is that the unpardonable sin today is remaining in the state of unbelief.

If this is correct, then 1 John 5:16, b could not be talking about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit since the restriction about not praying for this sin would be inconsistent with other Scriptures about praying for the lost.

One possible interpretation of 1 John 5:16 is what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–10. However, after consulting the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, as will be seen, it seems to rule this out under point number two.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

“There is a sin unto death Or, there is sin unto death; we have no τις or μία in the Greek, a fact which is against the supposition that any act of sin is intended. In that case would not S. John have named it, that the faithful might avoid it, and also know when it had been committed? The following explanations of ‘sin unto death’ may be safely rejected. 1. Sin punished by the law with death. 2. Sin punished by Divine visitation with death or sickness. 3. Sin punished by the Church with excommunication. As a help to a right explanation we may get rid of the idea which some commentators assume, that ‘sin unto death’ is a sin which can be recognised by those among whom the one who commits it lives. S. John’s very guarded language points the other way. He implies that some sins may be known to be ‘not unto death’: he neither says nor implies that all ‘sin unto death’ can be known as such. As a further help we may remember that no sin, if repented of, can be too great for God’s mercy. Hence S. John does not speak even of this sin as ‘fatal’ or ‘mortal’, but as ‘unto death’ (πρὸς θάνατον). Death is its natural, but not its absolutely inevitable consequence. It is possible to close the heart against the influences of God’s Spirit so obstinately and persistently that repentance becomes a moral impossibility. Just as the body may starve itself to such an extent as to make the digestion, or even the reception, of food impossible; so, the soul may go on refusing offers of grace until the very power to receive grace perishes. Such a condition is necessarily sin, and ‘sin unto death’. No passing over out of death into life (1 John 3:14) is any longer (without a miracle of grace) possible. ‘Sin unto death’, therefore, is not any act of sin, however heinous, but a state or habit of sin wilfully chosen and persisted in: it is constant and consummate opposition to God. In the phraseology of this Epistle we might say that it is the deliberate preference of darkness to light, of falsehood to truth, of sin to righteousness, of the world to the Father, of spiritual death to eternal life.” (1) (Underlining and bolding emphasis mine)

The Cambridge commentators rightly note that if John could identify the sin, he would be able to warn believers of this sin. However, since John does not identify the sin unto death, the following possibilities are ruled out, “1. Sin punished by the law with death. 2. Sin punished by Divine visitation with death or sickness. 3. Sin punished by the Church with excommunication.”

Calvin on 1 John 5:16:

“But among the faithful, this ought to be an indubitable truth, that whatever is contrary to God’s law is sin, and in its nature mortal; for where there is a transgression of the law, there is sin and death.

What, then, is the meaning of the Apostle? He denies that sins are mortal, which, though worthy of death, are yet not thus punished by God. He therefore does not estimate sins in themselves, but forms a judgment of them according to the paternal kindness of God, which pardons the guilt, where yet the fault is. In short, God does not give over to death those whom he has restored to life, though it depends not on them that they are not alienated from life.

There is a sin unto death I have already said that the sin to which there is no hope of pardon left, is thus called. But it may be asked, what this is; for it must be very atrocious, when God thus so severely punishes it. It may be gathered from the context, that it is not, as they say, a partial fall, or a transgression of a single commandment, but apostasy, by which men wholly alienate themselves from God. For the Apostle afterwards adds, that the children of God do not sin, that is, that they do not forsake God, and wholly surrender themselves to Satan, to be his slaves. Such a defection, it is no wonder that it is mortal; for God never thus deprives his own people of the grace of the Spirit; but they ever retain some spark of true religion. They must then be reprobate and given up to destruction, who thus fall away so as to have no fear of God.

Were any one to ask, whether the door of salvation is closed against their repentance; the answer is obvious, that as they are given up to a reprobate mind, and are destitute of the Holy Spirit, they cannot do anything else, than with obstinate minds, become worse and worse, and add sins to sins.

But it may be asked again, by what evidences can we know that a man’s fall is fatal; for except the knowledge of this was certain, in vain would the Apostle have made this exception, that they were not to pray for a sin of this kind. It is then right to determine sometimes, whether the fallen is without hope, or whether there is still a place for a remedy. This, indeed, is what I allow, and what is evident beyond dispute from this passage; but as this very seldom happens, and as God sets before us the infinite riches of his grace, and bids us to be merciful according to his own example, we ought not rashly to conclude that any one has brought on himself the judgment of eternal death; on the contrary, love should dispose us to hope well. But if the impiety of some appear to us not otherwise than hopeless, as though the Lord pointed it out by the finger, we ought not to contend with the just judgment of God, or seek to be more merciful than he is.” (2)

As Calvin notes, “They must then be reprobate and given up to destruction, who thus fall away so as to have no fear of God.” In this respect, Calvin equates the “sin unto death” with the sin of final apostasy.

From Spurgeon’s Expositions of the Bible on the 1 John passage:

“1 John 5:16-18. If any man sees his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whatsoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

He who has committed the sin which is unto death have no desire for forgiveness, he will never repent, he will never seek faith in Christ but he will continue hardened and unbelieving; he will henceforth never be the subject of holy influences, for he has crossed over into that dark region of despair where hope and mercy never come. Perhaps some of you think that you have committed that unpardonable sin, and are at this moment grieving over it. If so, it is clear that you cannot have committed that sin, or else you could not grieve over it. If you have any fear concerning it, you have not committed that sin which is unto death, for even fear is a sign of life. Whoever repents of sin and trusts in Jesus Christ is freely and fully forgiven, therefore it is clear that he has not committed a sin which will not be forgiven. There is much in this passage to make us prayerful and watchful, but there is nothing here to make a single troubled heart feel anything like despair. He that is born again, born from above, can never commit this unpardonable sin. He is kept from it; “that wicked one” cannot even touch him, for he is preserved by sovereign grace against this dreadful damage to his soul. You need not be curious to enquire what this unpardonable sin is. I will give you an old illustration of mine concerning it. You may sometimes have seen a notice put up on certain estates in the country, “Man-traps and spring guns set here,” but, if so, did you ever go round to the front door of the mansion, and say, “If you please will you tell me where the man-traps are, and whereabouts the spring guns are set?” If you had asked that question, the answer would have been, “It is the very purpose of this warning not to tell you where they are, for you have no business to trespass there at all.” So, “all unrighteousness is sin,” and you are warned to keep clear of it.” There is a sin unto death,” but you are not told what that sin is on purpose that you may, by the grace of God, keep clear of sin altogether.” (3)

As noted by Spurgeon, this “sin unto death” cannot be committed by a true Christian.

In closing:

In this final contribution, a look at the grammar and possibilities of a different translation of the text is explored to find a solution to understanding what John had in mind.

SHOULD WE PRAY FOR STRAYING BRETHREN? JOHN’S CONFIDENCE IN 1 JOHN 5:16–17 by Randal K. J. Tan*

V. Conclusion p. 608

Arguments from grammatical usage and from the flow of John’s argument

in 1 John point towards an alternative interpretation of 1 John 5:16–17:

(a) because the main verb levgw, “I speak,” comes between the prepositional

phrase “not concerning that” and the ªna-clause, NT usage heavily favors

taking the prepositional phrase with “I speak”; (b) John’s normal usage of

o§ti and ªna-clauses favors taking the ªna-clause here as a purpose clause,

“in order that he might supplicate”; and (c) the immediate context of 1 John

5:13–17 and the principle of maximal redundancy favor this reading.

The resulting translation is: “If anyone should see his brother practicing

a sin that does not lead to eternal death, he shall supplicate God and he shall

give him eternal life for those who are sinning not unto eternal death. There

is sin that leads to eternal death. I am not speaking concerning that sin that

leads to eternal death in order that he might supplicate God for the brother

whom he sees sinning. 40 For while all unrighteousness is sin, there is sin that

does not lead to eternal death.”

John’s purpose is to assure Christians of the efficacy of their prayers for

fellow members of the Christian community who fall into sin: our intercessory

prayers will certainly restore them to fellowship with God (tantamount

to having eternal/resurrection life in John’s writings, since God is the only

source of life), with one exception. While John acknowledges that there is

this exception, a category of sin that leads to eternal death, he does not wish

to focus on it because his purpose is to call believers to intercessory prayer.

Intercession thus appears to be one of the ways in which Christians are

to bear one another’s burdens (cf. Gal 6:1–2). Ultimately, each individual

40 John’s interchange of ejrwtaÅn with a√te∂n in John 16:23 and 26 shows that no difference in

meaning should be posited between these two verbs. John 16:26 also points the way to the words

that I supplied above: one supplicates God for people. John 17:9 shows how the one to whom one

supplicates can be omitted after the referent is established in context. Cf. notes 18 and 35. The

attempt to distinguish ejrwtaÅn from a√te∂n as indicating a more intimate relationship between the

one praying and the one addressed (see e.g. Westcott, The Epistles of John 192; G. Stahlin, “a√tevw,

ktl.” TDNT 1.193; and H. Greeven, “eußcomai, ktl.” TDNT 2.806) seems ill-founded

John’s confidence in 1 John 5:16–17 p. 609

must bear his or her own burden (individual responsibility; Gal 6:5). Each

must confess sin, repent, and believe the gospel for himself or herself (cf.

1 John 1:5–2:2). 41 Yet Christians who acknowledge John’s authority would

do well to heed his call to intercession. We can be confident that it is God’s

will that we intercede for a brother or sister who falls into sin and that our

intercessions will avail. If our intercessions do not ultimately avail, we will

know after the fact that this person has committed sin that leads to eternal

death (1 John 5:16b) and that he or she was never really part of the true

Christian community (1 John 2:19).

Ultimately, only God knows every heart, and we should leave all matters

in his hands. At the same time, we should not allow uncertainty over

whether a member of the visible Christian community has sinned or strayed

in a way that casts doubt on the genuineness of his or her faith keep us

from making fervent and persevering intercession for that person. Just as

we should humbly seek to instruct and correct, we should intercede with God

on behalf of straying brethren, “if perhaps God might grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 2:25). 42

41 One should not vainly hope that one’s conversion or restoration from straying would come

through others’ intercession apart from humbling oneself in personal confession of sin, repentance,

and renewed faith.

42 1 John 5:16–17 represents just one aspect of how the Christian community should deal with

straying members of the community. Other equally important aspects are brought out by pas-

sages like Matt 18:15–22; Luke 17:3–4; 1 Cor 5:1–6:11; 2 Cor 2:6–11; Gal 6:1–2; 2 Thess 3:14–15;

1 Tim 1:20; and James 5:15, 19–20. A balanced application of biblical teaching would neither

neglect intercession nor privilege it to the expense of the other aspects. Furthermore, anyone who

is in sin or contemplating sin should not reason perversely that since intercession, repentance,

and forgiveness are readily available, one might as well sin with impunity and seek restoration

later. For a helpful treatment of perseverance and assurance, see Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel

B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Downers

Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity, 2001) (4)

To answer the starting questions:

What is a sin unto death?

This question cannot be answered with certainty. From the commentary evidence surveyed above, the sin unto death would be final apostasy.

Can this sin be identified by one who is committing it or observing it?

Like the first question, this question likewise cannot be answered with certainty.

Can a Christian commit this sin?

If the sin unto death is final apostasy, then no, a Christian cannot commit it.

Concluding comment:

In light of the fourth entry by Randal K. J. Tan, the highlighted text seems to clarify the mystery of the “sin unto death.” Therefore, it was not John’s purpose at all to identify this sin; the text is an encouragement for intercessory prayers to fellow believers.

For more research:

Pastor theologian Sam Storms has a comprehensive analysis of 1 John 5:16 that can be found at, https://www.monergism.com/can-christian-commit-sin-unto-death

The Sin unto Death

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. The Epistles of John, The Cambridge Bible for Schools, Alfred Plummer, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

2. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 1 John, Volume XXII, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 268-269.

3. Spurgeon, Charles Haddon, “Commentary on 1 John 5,” “Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible” Online resource.

4. Journal of Evangelical Theology Society, (JETS) 45/4 (December 2002) 599–609

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 16, 2022 · 4:04 pm

Examples of conspiracies in the Bible

Examples of conspiracies in the Bible by Jack Kettler

Has the reader ever heard the pejorative “That’s a conspiracy theory”?

This Scriptural study will consider the above example of a pejorative. Additionally, the use of a pejorative will be looked at in regards to its origin and if the one using it is dodging a question or committing the equivalent of the abusive ad hominem fallacy.

Another focus of the study will be to consider Scripture and what it has to say about conspiracies. Unfortunately, the above pejorative has become so common in society that the phrase has almost become a mantra.

Are there conspiracies? Have politicians ever conspired to start wars? Have politicians conspired to have illegal monetary advantages? Have criminals ever conspired to commit all manner of crimes? In a sinful, fallen world, the depravity of man presupposes there will be conspiracies for evil. Nevertheless, prisons around the world are filled with conspirators.

For starters, what is a pejorative?

Pejorative – Wikipedia

“A pejorative or slur is a word or grammatical form expressing a negative or a disrespectful connotation, a low opinion, or a lack of respect toward someone …”

What does the Bible say?

Virtually all of the texts cited in this study will involve conspiracies that are primarily political. Were conspiracies confined to Biblical times only? If argued that this is so would be preposterous.

In this survey of Scriptures, the reader will see a number of texts where the word conspiracy or the equivalent is used.

Synonyms for conspiracy:

cabal, crew, gang, Mafia, mob, ring, syndicate

Words related to conspiracy:

collusion, cover-up, frame-up, setup, plot, plotteth, scheme, devising, planning, to do mischief, treason, unlawful alliance

Texts that use the word conspiracy:

“And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counseller, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy (הַקֶּ֙שֶׁר֙ (haq·qe·šer) was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom.” (2 Samuel 15:12) (All Scripture citations are in the KJV unless otherwise noted) (Underlining are mine)

Strong’s Lexicon:

“So the conspiracy

הַקֶּ֙שֶׁר֙ (haq·qe·šer)

Article | Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 7195: 1) conspiracy, treason, (unlawful) alliance”

The above entry from the Strong’s Lexicon is typical of the Hebrew in the following passages.

“Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there.” (2 Chronicles 25:27)

“And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo, which goeth down to Silla.” (2 Kings 12:20)

“Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.” (2 Kings 14:19)

“And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.” (2 Kings 15:15)

“And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” (2 Kings 15:30)

“And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore, the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.” (2 Kings 17:4)

“And the Lord said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (Jeremiah 11:9)

“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.” (Ezekiel 22:25)

“And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.” (Acts 23:13)

From Strong’s Lexicon:

“plot.

συνωμοσίαν (synōmosian)

Noun – Accusative Feminine Singular

Strong’s Greek 4945: A conspiracy, plot. From a compound of sun and omnuo; a swearing together, i.e., a plot.”

Texts that use the equivalent of conspiracy:

“Sanballat and Geshem sent a message to me, saying, “Come, let’s meet together at Chephirim in the plain of Ono.” But they were plotting חֹֽשְׁבִ֔ים (ḥō·šə·ḇîm) to harm me.” (Nehemiah 6:2 NASB)

From Strong’s Lexicon:

“were planning

חֹֽשְׁבִ֔ים (ḥō·šə·ḇîm)

Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine plural

Strong’s Hebrew 2803: 1 to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to think, account 1a2) to plan, devise, mean 1a3) to charge, impute, reckon 1a4) to esteem, value, regard 1a5) to invent 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be accounted, be thought, be esteemed 1b2) to be computed, be reckoned 1b3) to be imputed 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to think upon, consider, be mindful of 1c2) to think to do, devise, plan 1c3) to count, reckon 1d) (Hithpael) to be considered”

“The wicked plotteth זֹמֵ֣ם (zō·mêm) against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.” (Psalm 37:12)

From Strong’s Lexicon:

“scheme

זֹמֵ֣ם (zō·mêm)

Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 2161: 1 to have a thought, devise, plan, consider, purpose 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to consider, fix thought upon 1a2) to purpose, devise 1a3) to plot (of evil intent)”

The two Hebrew words in the above two passages are rendered by the translators as

“Hide me from the secret plots of the wicked, from the throng of evildoers.” (Psalms 64:2)

Comments and questions:

In light of the Scriptures seen above, it is irrefutable that the concept of a conspiracy can be dismissed. Moreover, to deny conspiracies is to deny the Biblical record itself.

What to do when someone wants to advance or expose by way of presenting information about a possible plot to advance illegal activity?

This writer realizes that no one is required to research and respond to every nefarious scheme. However, simply using a pejorative in response to serious research is unsatisfactory. Not everyone is obliged to respond to everything put forward by a theory. Moreover, it is admitted that some individuals that have a new theory every day.

Who is obligated to consider and test theories?

However, media reporters are required to do research instead of dismissing things out of hand. For many uncovering illegal schemes is a professional duty. It is also a duty of citizenship.

For those in the media, in particular, it is incumbent to at least look at the merits of theory or argument. Many laws are designed to inhibit illegal activity.

On the other hand, no one is obliged to deal with outright absurdities like “The moon is made out of green cheese.” An assertion like this is not a conspiracy as a more likely possible mental problem.

Has the reader ever heard of the term cover-up? A cover-up is a conspiracy.

Depending on the reader’s age, they may remember the “Watergate” cover-up. What if the reporters for the Washington Post started receiving leaks about the cover-up, and what if they responded by saying, “That a conspiracy theory?”

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, meaning that one person or situation should be treated the same way that another person or situation is treated:

So, if the documentaries Rigged 2020 and 2000 Mules which tell the story uncovered by the non-partisan True the Vote.org, are going to be dismissed by simply saying “that is a conspiracy theory,” then saying that an old guy named Joe with dementia who did not campaign got 81 million votes is a “conspiracy theory” also.

One of the most outlandish “Conspiracy Theories” to be promoted in recent times is by the Uni-party political establishment, namely, that Joe Biden, who is in dramatic mental decline and spent most of his time in his basement during the campaign. On limited occasions when he made a few appearances, the crowds were extremely small. As the Biden conspiracy theory goes, this feeble candidate with no visible support got 81 million votes. This is the real conspiracy theory.

Criteria that demands evidence be evaluated:

· A majority of the American people want answers

· A credible whistleblower comes forward

· Investigators bring evidence forth

Joe Biden said his team created:

“The most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” – Joe Biden

October 25, 2020, as reported in the “Free Beacon.”

Do those who dismiss millions of Americans’ concerns about a stolen election simply by saying it is a “Conspiracy theory” know who Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips are? Furthermore, can they also identify the non-profit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and its relevance to the discussion? If not, why not? Are those dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans who cannot answer the above two questions simply parroting something they heard?

Was the state of Texas’ lawsuit against Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, for diluting and invalidating their votes “conspiracy theorists”? Is Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General who brought the lawsuit, a “conspiracy theorist”? What about the AGs from the twenty states that signed on with the Texas lawsuit?

A sizeable majority of Americans do not believe in the 2020 election results. Therefore, dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans is offensive and a “conspiracy” itself.

The origins of the term conspiracy theory:

“The Term “Conspiracy Theory” — an Invention of the CIA

from the Rev. Douglas Wilson, member of the Core Group of Project Unspeakable

Having read JFK and the Unspeakable several years ago, I’ve been thinking about assassinations for quite a while and I’ve seen how “conspiracy theory” is used to shut off debate, to signal that we’re entering “the unspeakable” zone. So, I began to wonder if the use of the term Conspiracy Theory might be a conspiracy itself.

So, I went exploring, and surprise surprise, there is a 1967 CIA memo that puts forward a great many of the commonly heard rebuttals to the Warren Commission Report. The CIA owned over 250 media outlets in the 1960s, spent close to a billion dollars (in today’s dollars) spreading information, and had people doing its bidding in every major city in the world, so it is not surprising that they were able to disseminate this idea.

And the issue is contemporary, too, not just historical. Cass Sunstein is a powerful Obama Administration insider whose new book, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas, is a sophisticated apology for the established order.

The last of this series of articles is the CIA 1967 memo itself.

CIA Document 1035-960: Foundation of a Weaponized Term”

See the CIA document at the following site:

https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia/

The CIA document referenced came about as a result of the outcry of millions of Americans not trusting the “Warren Commission’s” findings on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The CIA using its media influence, coined the phrase “That’s a conspiracy” to dismiss the questions of concerned citizens. How convenient. Unfortunately, just hearing this charge throws individuals into a panic, thinking that they will be seen as someone wearing a tin foil hat. Again, how convenient.

In closing:

The goal of this study is to remind Christians that the Biblical record makes it clear there are conspiracies. Moreover, Christians should not become intellectually lazy by using pejoratives to refute credible information fallaciously. The AGs from twenty-one states are not conspiracy theorists.

How the fed gov itself fuels the fears of government cover-ups:

Why did the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially seal Pfizer testing data on their vaccine for the covid virus for 75 years? An outcry from the public changed this. Social medial sites initially dismissed this as a “conspiracy theory” and locked individuals out of their accounts for asking questions.

Is this censorship of free speech on the internet the result of the initial CIA scheme to slander individuals asking politically incorrect questions? It has become common knowledge that in many cases, the government at all levels, when charged with wrongdoing, is to lie.

“If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” (Proverbs 18:13 ESV)

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 9, 2022 · 4:30 pm

The prayer of Jabez, is this prayer for all Christians?

The prayer of Jabez, is this prayer for all Christians? by Jack Kettler

“Jabez was more honorable than his brothers; and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, “Because I bore him in pain.” Jabez called upon the God of Israel, saying, “Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border, and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from harm so that it might not bring me pain!” And God granted what he asked.” (1 Chronicles 4:9-10 ESV)

Is this prayer for Christians today to emulate?

This writer has been at sales conferences and has seen the passage regarding the prayer of Jabez used as what seems like a magical incantation for people to use. The prayer of Jabez is used in the “Prosperity Gospel,” “Name it and Claim it,” and “Word of Faith” movements. Jabez’s prayer in these circles is promoted in such a way that God is bound to answer it if the person has the right amount of faith.

Bruce Wilkinson, the author of this book on the prayer of Jabez, believes that ordinary Christians can live extraordinary lives by seeking God’s blessing. In his view, the prayer of Jabez becomes a model prayer to achieve wealth and prosperity.

Wilkinson declares that God always answers this prayer:

“God favors those who ask. He holds back nothing from those who want and earnestly long for what He wants.” (1)

God, according to this assertion, is seemingly bound to answer this prayer.

Wilkinson asserts that if one prays the prayer of Jabez:

“Word-for-word, every day for a month, then believers will see God’s power released in our lives.” (2)

The very title of Wilkinson’s book reveals his theology that blessings of material wealth will follow by praying this prayer. How is this so? Jabez’s prayer in Scripture provides no mandate for Christians down through the ages to repeat this prayer. While it is not sinful to repeat this prayer, it is presumptuous to think God is obligated to respond to this prayer as He did for Jabez. Why would God be bound to answer this prayer by believers other than Jabez?

Furthermore, nothing in the 1 Chronicles 4:9-10 text warrants anything other than seeing it as a historical account. Therefore, there is no textual warrant for ripping this prayer out of its historical context.

Wilkinson’s hermeneutics is flawed:

Hermeneutics: is the science of interpretation. From the Greek hermeneuo, “to explain, interpret.” Hermeneutics is known as the science of Biblical interpretation. The apostle Paul described the goal of all accurate hermeneutics in 2 Timothy 2:15 when he said, “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

The grammatical-historical hermeneutic is needed:

The goal of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic or method attempts to recognize what the writer intended and what the original hearers would have understood it to mean. Grammar and

syntax is used to determine the various parts of the thoughts in the text and how they are to be understood.

Exegesis, the interpretive norm:

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι’ to lead out’) is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage, it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term “Biblical exegesis” is used for greater specificity. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the text, which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes the classification of the type of literary genres present in the text and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

Eisegesis, the interpretive danger:

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς “into” and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s ideas, reading into the text. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning of the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed, while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, and someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete.

The assertion that saying this prayer every day word-for-word sounds like an incantation. In addition, Wilkinson’s assertion sounds a lot like Napoleon Hill’s book “Think and Grow Rich.” Moreover, Wilkinson’s approach to Scripture in his book on the Prayer of Jabez seems like how some approach the writing of Nostradamus by searching the writings looking for some secret truth or code that can be found.

Instead of praying every day for God to “enlarge my territory,” Believers should follow Jesus’s example when He asks for God’s kingdom to come, for God’s will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:0).

Wilkinson’s approach to Scripture is flawed and commits the error of reading into the text (Eisegesis) ideas that are not the passage. If Wilkinson has had hermeneutical training, he has thrown it out the window in approach to the prayer of Jabez.

Jeffrey H. Mahan, professor of ministry, media, and culture at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, said:

“It fits with the narcissism of the age. Religious life is focused on me and my needs.” (3)

In closing:

Before Wilkinson wrote his book, he should have consulted a number of classic commentaries that are easily assessable online.

A sober exegesis of the 1 Chronicles text from Matthew Poole’s Commentary:

“Jabez called on the God of Israel, when he was undertaking some great and dangerous service.

Oh, that thou wouldst bless me indeed. I trust not to my own or people’s valour, but only to thy blessing and help.

Enlarge my coast; drive out these wicked and cursed Canaanites, whom thou hast commanded us to root out, and therefore I justly beg and expect thy blessing in the execution of thy command.

That thine hand might be with me, to protect and strengthen me against my adversaries.

That thou wouldst keep me from evil, or work with (for so the Hebrew prefix mem is sometimes used, as Song of Solomon 1:2 3:9 Isaiah 5:7,8), i.e. so-restrain and govern it.

That it may not grieve me; that it may not oppress and overcome me, which will be very grievous to me. The consequent put for the antecedent; and more is understood than is expressed. He useth this expression in allusion to his name, which signifies grief: q.d. Lord, let me not have that grief which my name implies, and which my sin deserves.” (4)

One can be presumptuous, unseemly self-confident and make prideful predictions regarding their standing before God. However, being presumptuous is a type of arrogance that is inappropriate.

Instead, believers should be governed by humility seeking God’s will rather than demanding God’s favor.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Bruce Wilkinson, The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life, (Sisters, OR, Multnomah, 2000), p. 76.

2. Bruce Wilkinson, The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life, (Sisters, OR, Multnomah, 2000), p. 86.

3. Jeffery H. Mahan, A Book Spreads the Word: Prayer for Prosperity Works, (New York Times, May 8, 2001).

4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 1 Chronicles, Vol. 3, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 231.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

June 29, 2022 · 9:44 pm

What does “God came from Teman” mean?

What does “God came from Teman” mean? by Jack Kettler

“God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.” (Habakkuk 3:3)

At a glance:

In chapter 1:5, Habakkuk raises questions to God because he could not understand why evil was dominant. God had promised to bless, and Habakkuk did not see any evidence of this. Additionally, God said He would do great things that “you would not believe if you were told.”

Chapter two consists of God replying to Habakkuk’s question.

In chapter 3:2, Habakkuk gives God the glory and praise for faithfully answering his questions, “LORD, I have heard thy speech about You and I fear. O LORD, revive Your work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy.”

The above starting passage from the minor prophet Habakkuk is somewhat obscure. If one were to approach this passage from a finite corporeal finite of view, interpreting the verse would quickly degenerate into complete nonsense. For example:

One might speculate that God was on a trip or visiting his hometown.

The goal of this study will be to understand the text and in particular, learn about Teman and Mount Paran, or the wilderness of Paran.

In the following cross references, Teman is referred to again:

“And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his stead.” (Genesis 36:34)

“And when Jobab was dead, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.” (1 Chronicles 1:45)

“Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came everyone from his own place; Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite: for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.” (Job 2:11)

“Concerning Edom, thus saith the LORD of hosts; Is wisdom no more in Teman? is counsel perished from the prudent? is their wisdom vanished?” (Jeremiah 49:7)

“Therefore, thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and will cut off man and beast from it; and I will make it desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword.” (Ezekiel 25:13)

“But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of Bozrah.” (Amos 1:12)

“And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mounts of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.” (Obadiah 1:9)

In the following cross references, Paran is referred to:

“And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness.” (Genesis 14:6)

“And the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran.” (Numbers 10:12)

“And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousand of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” (Deuteronomy 33:2)

“And Samuel died; and all the Israelites were gathered together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah. And David arose, and went down to the wilderness of Paran.” (1 Samuel 25:1)

Definitions and historical details from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

TEMAN

“te’-man (teman, “on the right,” i.e. “south”; Thaiman): The name of a district and town in the land of Edom, named after Teman the grandson of Esau, the son of his firstborn, Eliphaz (Genesis 36:11 1 Chronicles 1:36). A duke Teman is named among the chiefs or clans of Edom (Genesis 36:42 1 Chronicles 1:53). He does not however appear first, in the place of the firstborn. Husham of the land of the Temanites was one of the ancient kings of Edom (Genesis 36:34 1 Chronicles 1:45). From Obad 1:9 we gather that Teman was in the land of Esau (Edom). In Amos 1:12 it is named along with Bozrah, the capital of Edom. In Ezekiel 25:13 desolation is denounced upon Edom: “From Teman even unto Dedan shall they fall by the sword.” Dedan being in the South, Teman must be sought in the North Eusebius, Onomasticon knows a district in the Gebalene region called Theman, and also a town with the same name, occupied by a Roman garrison, 15 miles from Petra. Unfortunately, no indication of direction is given. No trace of the name has yet been found. It may have been on the road from Elath to Bozrah.

The inhabitants of Teman seem to have been famous for their wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7 Obadiah 1:8 f). Eliphaz the Temanite was chief of the comforters of Job (2:11, etc.). The manner in which the city is mentioned by the prophets, now by itself, and again as standing for Edom, shows how important it must have been in their time.” W. Ewing (1)

The wilderness of Paran:

Paran, El-paran

“pa’-ran, (pa’ran, ‘el-pa’ran; Pharan):

(1) El-paran (Ge 14:6) was the point farthest South reached by the kings. Septuagint renders ‘el by terebinthos, and reads, “unto the terebinth of Paran.” The evidence is slender, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that this is the place elsewhere (De 2:8; 1Ki 9:26, etc.) called Elath or Eloth (‘el with feminine termination), a seaport town which gave its name to the Aelanitic Gulf (modern Gulf of `Aqaba), not far from the wilderness of Paran (2).

(2) Many places named in the narrative of the wanderings lay within the Wilderness of Paran (Nu 10:12; 13:21; 27:14; compare Nu 13:3,16, etc.). It is identified with the high limestone plateau of Ettih, stretching from the Southwest of the Dead Sea to Sinai along the west side of the Arabah. This wilderness offered hospitality to Ishmael when driven from his father’s tent (Ge 21:21). Hither also came David when bereaved of Samuel’s protection (1Sa 25:1).

(3) Mount Paran (De 33:2; Hab 3:3) may be either Jebel Maqrah, 29 miles South of `Ain Kadis (Kadesh-barnea), and 130 miles North of Sinai (Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 510); or the higher and more imposing range of mountains West of the Gulf of `Aqaba. This is the more probable if El-paran is rightly identified with Elath.

(4) Some place named Paran would seem to be referred to in De 1:1; but no trace of such a city has yet been found. Paran in 1Ki 11:18 doubtless refers to the district West of the Arabah.” W. Ewing (2)

Next, an entry from a classic Bible commentary to gain an enlightening overview of the Habakkuk 3:3 passage is in order.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges explains the passage:

“3. God came from Teman] cometh: the poet feels himself in presence of the manifestation. Teman is a district lying in the north-west of Edom, Ezekiel 25:13; Obadiah 1:9.

the Holy One from mount Paran Or, the mountains (hill country) of Paran. The “Holy One” is virtually already a proper name (without the Art.), as Isaiah 40:25. Paran is the elevated region lying between the wilderness of Kadesh on the north and that of Sinai on the south, west of the Arabah. If any particular mountain be referred to it may be Jebel Mukrah, which has a height of 2000 feet, and forms the southern boundary of the plateau. At present the region is the seat of the Azazimeh Arabs. The whole region of Sinai, Paran and Edom is regarded as the scene of the divine manifestation; comp. Deuteronomy 33:2; Jdg 5:4.

His glory covered covereth the heavens. The “glory” is the splendour of the divine majesty, which overspreads the heavens. Psalm 8:1; Psalm 148:13.

was full of his praise] the earth is filled with. The term “praise” has a secondary meaning, viz. that in God which evokes praise or adoration. The meaning is not that praises from men’s mouth filled the earth, but that the light of God’s glory filled it, just as it overspread the heavens. Isaiah 6:3.

3–7. Approach and manifestation of Jehovah in the storm

The Theophany is pictured as a great tempest in the heavens in the midst of which God is present. It comes from the south, the region of Paran and Sinai (Habakkuk 3:3 a); there is a terrible splendour around the advancing God, which lightens the heavens and the earth (Habakkuk 3:3 b, 4); pestilence and fever-glow follow in His wake (Habakkuk 3:5); all nature shudders, the eternal hills sink down (Habakkuk 3:6); the nations and tribes in the desert are dismayed (Habakkuk 3:7).

3–15. The Revelation of Jehovah

The passage has three strophes of 5, 4, 4 verses respectively. (1) Description of the Theophany, Habakkuk 3:3-7. (2) The question, what is its meaning? Habakkuk 3:8-11. (3) Statement of its meaning—it is to save His people, Habakkuk 3:12-15.” (3)

In closing, a summary:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers is an excellent commentary summary:

“(3-15) Habakkuk describes the “Theophany” or self-manifestation of Jehovah, which is to introduce the desired deliverance. The Authorised Version has unfortunately rendered all the verbs in this section in the past tense, thus obscuring the sense of the poem. They all refer to a scene really future, but brought by the grasp of faith into the immediate present. In the Hebrew some of these verbs are in the future tense, others in the past used with the force of a present, the “prophetic perfect” as it is sometimes termed. Such a use of the Hebrew preterite is common in Biblical poetry, notably in the Book of Psalms. It is almost impossible to reproduce in English the slight distinction between these tenses. While, however, his eyes are thus fixed on a future deliverance, the basis of all Habakkuk’s anticipations is God’s doings in time past; the chief features in the portraiture are, in fact, borrowed from the Books of Exodus and Judges.

(3) God came. — Render “God shall come from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covers the heavens, and the earth is full of His praise.” Jehovah reveals Himself from the south: i.e., from Mount Sinai, as in Deuteronomy 32, Judges 5, Psalms 68. The southern country is here designated as “Teman,” i.e., Edom to the S.E., and “Paran,” the mountainous region to the S.W., between Edom and Egypt.” (4)

The Habakkuk 3:3 passage, at first sight, is seemingly an obscure passage. Nevertheless, the diligent reader will find a gold mine of edification from sampling some of the rich contributions that Biblical commentators have made regarding the text. The manifestation of Jehovah in the storm or the Theophany is striking and majestic.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘TEMAN,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 2929.

2. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘PARAN,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 2247.

3. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Andrew B. Davidson, Habakkuk, (Cambridge University Press, 1896), e-Sword version.

4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Habakkuk, Vol.5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 531.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

June 24, 2022 · 9:59 pm

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8:8?

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8:8? by Jack Kettler

“And again, he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.” (John 8:8)

Cross References

“When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.’” (John 8:7)

“When they heard this, they began to go away one by one, beginning with the older ones, until only Jesus was left, with the woman standing there.” (John 8:9)

The passage in John under consideration has been the subject of much speculation about what Jesus wrote on the ground. It should be pointed out that the text in John says nothing about what Jesus wrote on the ground, which in this case, the theories are based upon an argument from silence.

An argument from silence is flawed:

Argumentum ex silentio is a logical fallacy. How so? An argument from silence tries to prove something as true in the absenteeism of evidence.

What Was it That Jesus Wrote on the Ground?

Four of the most common theories:

1. Jeremiah 17:13 is said to show that Jesus was to write on the ground. “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake You will be put to shame. Those who turn away from You will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.”

2. Jesus allegedly wrote the accuser’s names in the dust and perhaps then wrote a sin that they had committed next to their name.

3. He wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger.

4. The woman was “caught in the act” of adultery, possibly she was without clothes, and Jesus was writing in the dirt to avoid His eyes from seeing the unclothed woman.

Theory number one attempts to base the theory on a possible prophecy found in Jeremiah 17:13 predicting Jesus writing on the ground. However, even if this were true, the Scriptures still do not say what he wrote.

Raymond Brown’s Anchor Bible Commentary has the most comprehensive list of theories, some of which are listed below:

1. “Starting with Jerome, there is a suggestion that Jesus wrote the names of the accusers.

2. T.W. Manson, in a widely cited article: “The Pericope de Adultera (Joh 753–811)”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 44 (1953): 255-6, argued that Jesus’ actions reflected Roman legal practice: writing the sentence (8:6), then delivered (8:7), and wrote again (8:8) what he would say in v. 11.

3. Some find echoes not of Exodus/Deuteronomy but of Jeremiah 17:13, which speaks of “writing on the earth.”

4. J.D.M. Derrett proposed (1963) specific connections to Exodus 23:1b, concerning the prohibition against being a malicious witness.

5. Some suggest that Jesus is just biding his time, with various grounds suggested.” (1)

From Arthur Pink’s Commentary on John 8:6-8:

“But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground” (John 8:6). This was the first thing that He here did. That there was a symbolical significance to His action goes without saying, and what this is we are not left to guess. Scripture is its own interpreter. This was not the first time that the Lord had written “with his finger.” In Exodus 31:18 we read, “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” When, then, our Lord wrote on the ground (from the ground must the “tables of stone” have been taken), it was as though He had said, you remind Me of the law! Why, it was My finger which wrote that law! Thus, did He show these Pharisees that He had come here, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. His writing on the ground, then, was (symbolically) a ratification of God’s righteous law. But so blind were His would-be accusers they discerned not the significance of His act.”

“So, when they continued asking him” (John 8:7). It is evident that our Lord’s enemies mistook His silence for embarrassment. They no more grasped the force of His action of writing on the ground, than did Belshazzar understand the writing of that same Hand on the walls of his palace. Emboldened by His silence, and satisfied that they had Him cornered, they continued to press their question upon Him. O the persistency of evil-doers! How often they put to shame our lack of perseverance and importunity.”

“So, when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). This, too, has a far deeper meaning than what appears on the surface. God’s Law was a holy and a righteous one, and here we find the Law-giver Himself turning its white light upon these men who really had so little respect for it. Christ was here intimating that they, His would-be accusers, were no fit subjects to demand the enforcement of the law’s sentence. None but a holy hand should administer the perfect law. In principle, we may see here the great Adversary and Accuser reprimanded. Satan may stand before the angel of the Lord to resist “the high priest” (Zechariah 3:1), but, morally, he is the last one who should insist on the maintenance of righteousness. And how strikingly this reprimanding of the Pharisees by Christ adumbrated what we read of in Zechariah 3:2 (“The Lord rebuke you, O Satan”) scarcely needs to be pointed out.”

“And again, he stooped down, and wrote on the ground” (John 8:8). Profoundly significant was this, and unspeakably blessed. The symbolic meaning of it is plainly hinted at in the word “again”: The Lord wrote on the ground a second time. And of what did that speak? Once more the Old Testament Scriptures supply the answer. The first “tables of stone” were dashed to the ground by Moses, and broken. A second set was therefore written by God. And what became of the second “tables of stone”? They were laid up in the ark (Exodus 40:20), and were covered by the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat! Here, then, Christ was giving more than a hint of how He would save those who were, by the law, condemned to death. It was not that the law would be set aside: far from it. As His first stooping down and with His finger writing on the ground intimated, the law would be “established.” But as He stooped down and wrote the second time, He signified that the shed blood of an innocent substitute should come between the law and those it condemned!”

“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last” (John 8:9). Thus was “the strong man bound” (Matthew 12:29). Christ’s enemies had thought to ensnare Him by the law of Moses; instead, they had its searching light turned upon themselves. Grace had not defied, but had upheld the law! One sentence from the lips of Holiness incarnate and they were all silenced, all convicted, and all departed. At another time, a self-righteous Pharisee might boast of his lastings, his tithes and his prayers; but when God turns the light on a man’s heart, his moral and spiritual depravity become apparent even to himself, and shame shuts his lips. So, it was here. Not a word had Christ uttered against the law; in nowise had He condoned the woman’s sin. Unable to find any ground for accusation against Him, completely baffled in their evil designs, convicted by their consciences, they slunk away: “beginning at the eldest,” because he had the most sin to hide and the most reputation to preserve. And in the conduct of these men we have a clear intimation of how the wicked will act in the last great Day. Now, they may proclaim their self-righteousness, and talk about the injustice of eternal punishment. But then, when the light of God flashes upon them, and their guilt and ruin are fully exposed, they shall, like these Pharisees, be speechless.”

“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out.” There is a solemn warning here for sinners who may be exercised in mind over their condition. Here were men who were “convicted by their own conscience,” yet instead of this causing them to cast themselves at the feet of Christ, it resulted in them leaving Christ! Nothing short of the Holy Spirit’s quickening will ever bring a soul into saving contact with the Lord Jesus.”

“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst” (John 8:9). This is exceedingly striking. These scribes and Pharisees had challenged Christ from the law. He met them on their own ground, and vanquished them by the law. “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those your accusers? has no man condemned you? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn you” (John 8:10, 11). The law required two witnesses before its sentence could be executed (Deuteronomy 19:15), yet, those witnesses must assist in the carrying out of the sentence (Deuteronomy 17:7). But here not a single witness was left to testify against this woman who had merely been indicted. Thus, the law was powerless to touch her. What, then, remained? Why, the way was now clear for Christ to act in “grace and truth.”

“Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). No doubt the question occurs to many of our readers, was this woman saved at the time she left Christ? Personally, we believe that she was. We believe so because she did not leave Christ when she had opportunity to do so; because she addressed Him as “Lord” (contrast “Master” of the Pharisees in verse 4); and because Christ said to her, “Neither do I condemn you.” But, as another has said, “In looking at these incidents of Scripture, we need not ask if the objects of the grace act in the intelligence of the story. It is enough for us that here was a sinner exposed in the presence of Him who came to meet sin and put it away. Whoever takes the place of this woman meets the word that clears of condemnation, just as the publicans and sinners with whom Christ eats in Luke 15, set forth this, that if one takes the place of the sinner and the outcast, he is at once received. So, with the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver. There is no intelligence of their condition, yet they set forth that which, if one take, it is representative. To make it clear, one might ask, ‘Are you as sinful as this woman, as badly lost as that sheep or piece of silver?’ (Malachi Taylor)”

“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those your accusers? has no man condemned you? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more.” How striking and how blessed is this sequel to what has been before us! When Christ wrote on the ground the second time (not before), the “accusers” of the guilty departed! And then, after the last accuser had disappeared, the Lord said, “Neither do I condemn you.” How perfect the picture and to complete it, Christ added, “Go, and sin no more,” which is still His word to those who have been saved by grace. And the ground, the righteous ground, on which He pronounced this verdict “Neither do I condemn you,” was, that in a short time He was going to be “condemned” in her stead. Finally, note the order of these two words of Christ to this woman who owned Him as “Lord” (1 Corinthians 12:3). It was not, “Go and sin no more, and I will not condemn you,” for that would have been a death-knell rather than good news in her ears. Instead, the Savior said, “Neither do I condemn you.” And to everyone who takes the place this woman was brought into, the word is, “There is therefore now no condemnation” (Romans 8:1). “And sin no more” placed her, as we are placed, under the constraint of His love.”

“This incident then contains far more than that which was of local and ephemeral significance. It, in fact, raises the basic question of, how can mercy and justice be harmonized? How can grace flow forth except by slighting holiness? In the scene here presented to our view we are shown, not by a closely reasoned out statement of doctrine, but in symbolic action, that this problem is not insolvable to Divine wisdom. Here was a concrete case of a guilty sinner leaving the presence of Christ un-condemned. And it was neither because the law had been slighted nor sin palliated. The requirements of the law were strictly complied with, and her sin was openly condemned—”sin no more.” Yet, she herself, was not condemned. She was dealt with according to “grace and truth.” Mercy flowed out to her, yet not at the expense of justice. Such, in brief, is a summary, of this marvelous narrative; a narrative which, truly, no man ever invented and no uninspired pen ever recorded.”

“This blessed incident not only anticipated the epistle to the Romans, but it also outlines, by vivid symbols, the Gospel of the grace of God. The Gospel not only announces a Savior for sinners, but it also explains how God can save them consistently with the requirements of His character. As Romans 1:17 tells us, in the Gospel is “the righteousness of God revealed.” And this is precisely what is set forth here in John 8.” (2)

In closing:

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Proverbs 3:6 has an exhortation to be heeded:

“6. Add thou not] Do not mix with the pure silver of His words the dross of human speculations. “Noli investigare res quæ mentem humanam transcendunt (Proverbs 30:4), ut doctrinam divinitus patefactam inde compleas. Maurer.” (3)

Google translation of Maurer “so that you may complete the doctrine revealed by God.”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Notes:

1. R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, (Yale Anchor Bible 29; Doubleday, 1966), pp. 333-334.

2. Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1975), pp. 14-19.

3. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Proverbs, by T. T. Perowne, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Religion That Started in a Hat

What is an Abomination?

A primer regarding a doctrinal debate among Reformation Churches

What does the Apostle Paul mean by dogs in Philippians 3:2?

What are the stones mentioned in Isaiah 54:11?

What is Levirate marriage in Scripture?

What is the sin that is unto death?

Examples of conspiracies in the Bible

The prayer of Jabez, is this prayer for all Christians?

What does “God came from Teman” mean?

What did Jesus write on the ground in John 8:8?

Search

Recent Entries

Links

Blogroll