Category Archives: JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

Can you explain “let your loins be girded” in Luke 12:35?

Can you explain, “Let your loins be girded,” in Luke 12:35?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN, “LET YOUR LOINS BE GIRDED,” IN LUKE 12:35?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately” (Luke 12:35-36). In what sense are their “loins” to be “girded about?”

In Bible days, the Jews wore outer garments similar to robes. A belt or sash—a girdle—was used to fasten the garment closer to the body. Otherwise, being loose, it would flap about and hinder physical movement (preventing work, running, and so on). For example, “And the hand of the LORD was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel” (1 Kings 18:46). Unless his outer garment were tucked in, Elijah would not have been an agile runner. To physically gird up the loins (hips, groin, waist) meant to take a material belt and tightly secure the clothes to the flesh and blood body. In the case of Luke 12:35, the command is figurative and spiritual, applying to the inner man. Be ready to act internally! The girdle here is truth, sound Bible doctrine, what will keep Israel thinking properly as she awaits Jesus’ Second Coming. Her mind and heart (spirit and soul) should be “tied down,” not wandering about!

A similar exhortation, also concerning Christ’s return, is found in 1 Peter chapter 1: “[13] Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; [14] As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: [15] But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; [16] Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Even we in the Dispensation of Grace are instructed, “…having your loins girt about with truth” (Ephesians 6:14). Whether in the prophetic program (Israel’s Little Flock), or the mystery program (us, the Church the Body of Christ), the renewed mind should always guide and motivate the saints (Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 4:20-24; Colossians 3:10). If the loins of our mind are not secured according to sound Bible doctrine, we will drift about with false doctrine and become disoriented, thereby being rendered unfit for God’s ministry (but quite helpful to Satan’s!).

Also see:
» Can you explain, “We are in the world, but not of the world?”
» Why did Jesus tell Israel they do not know the date of His return?
» Does doctrine really matter?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, Whose are the “words” of 1 Samuel 3:19?

Whose are the “words” of 1 Samuel 3:19?

WHOSE ARE THE “WORDS” OF 1 SAMUEL 3:19?

by Shawn Brasseaux

First, let us read the verse about which we have the question: “And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.” Since there are two male individuals here—Samuel and the LORD—the expression “his words” is rather ambiguous. Is it Samuel not letting the words of the LORD (that is, the Scriptures) fall to the ground? Or, is it the LORD not letting the words of Samuel (that is, his preaching) fall to the ground? What does “fall to the ground” imply anyway?

Verse 20 seems to resolve the matter for us: “And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD.” If Samuel were a prophet of the LORD, he needed authentication or validation—namely, his prophecies fulfilled. He took in God’s words (especially the Law of Moses) and subsequently preached in accordance with them. That is to say, God let none of Samuel’s prophetic words fall to the ground. All of Samuel’s prophecies came true (they were not trampled on the ground or considered worthless). Accordingly, everyone within the borders of Israel—from Dan (northernmost) to Beersheba (southernmost)— recognized Samuel as God’s spokesman! Thus was the LORD’S promise to the evil Priest Eli fulfilled. Whereas he and his idolatrous sons were banned from the priesthood, Samuel was a faithful minister in their stead (cf. 1 Samuel 2:27-36).

Also see:
» How did Eli honor his sons more than he honor God?
» Why does Peter start with Samuel in Acts 3:24?
» Was the Apostle Paul a false prophet?
» How do we identify false teachers?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, What does “skin for skin” mean in Job 2:4?

What does “skin for skin” mean in Job 2:4?

WHAT DOES “SKIN FOR SKIN” MEAN IN JOB 2:4?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life” (Job 2:4). What exactly was the Devil communicating here?

To begin, it helps to establish some background, as found in chapter 1 of Job. Job is a righteous and prosperous Jew, living in the time between the Books of Genesis and Exodus. Satan desires to attack him, and does so after obtaining the LORD’S permission. Although Job cannot be harmed physically, he loses his family and possessions: his oxen and asses are stolen, the fire of God comes down and kills his sheep, his camels are stolen, and even all seven of his sons and all three of his daughters die. Only a handful of his hundreds of servants remain alive. Job does not curse or slander God, but rather blesses Him (Job 1:20-22).

In chapter 2, Satan again stands before God. Read verses 3-5: “[3] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. [4] And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. [5] But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.” According to Satan, Job should suffer more so the “real” him can be exposed. While Job has not railed against God, if he himself should experience bodily pain, then God’s “righteous” man will be shown to be a hypocrite. (Satan’s mind is perverted, but what else do we expect?!)

At this point, we have encountered that unique expression again, “skin for skin” (Job 2:4). The entire verse is, “And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.” Paraphrased, Satan replies to the LORD, “The only reason Job has not yet cursed You yet is because he himself is still alive and healthy. He is willing to give up the skin of his children, animals, and servants, that he perish not.” In other words, Job is allegedly insensitive or callous. To say it yet another way, “Job’s children, servants, and animals died, but he himself remains untouched, which is why he does not curse You, God! Those are unsubstantial losses to him, so they do not move him to the point of revealing his ‘true’ self. However, let his physical body suffer—then he will blaspheme against You and You will finally see the ‘real’ Job!”

Even today, we use English phrases such as, “He will save his own skin” or “She saved his skin.” These are descriptions of rescues from dangers or difficulties concerning the physical (flesh and blood) body, the syntactical structure being related to Satan’s wording.

Saints, please remember us in your monthly giving—these websites do cost money to run! 🙂 You can donate securely here: https://www.paypal.me/ShawnBrasseaux, or email me at arcministries@gmail.com. Do not forget about Bible Q&A booklets for sale at https://arcgraceministries.org/in-print/booklets-bible-q-a/. Thanks to all who give to and pray for us! By the way, ministry emails have really been backed up this year. I am handling them as much as humanly possible. Thanks for your patience. 🙂

Also see:
» Does God chasten us when we sin?
» Is God chastening me?
» Why does God let Satan exist?
» Where in the Bible did God give Satan domain over the Earth?

Can you explain the “single” eye and the “evil” eye?, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

Can you explain the “single” eye and the “evil” eye?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE “SINGLE” EYE AND THE “EVIL” EYE?

by Shawn Brasseaux

We find this contrast twice in Scripture:

  • Matthew 6:22-23: “[22] The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. [23] But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
  • Luke 11:34-36: “[34] The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. [35] Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. [36] If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.”

The “light” can be understood as a lamp. Through the physical eye, the physical body is aware of its surroundings. If we take this and apply it to the spiritual realm, we understand the spiritual eye allows the spiritual body to be aware of its environment. The “single eye” refers to a clear eye that has one image in view as opposed to double vision. It is good because it sees reality instead of an illusion. The single eye sees truth. On the other hand, the “evil eye” is the bad or deceived eye. It is not focused on one image but a combination of images, which is nothing but error, fleshliness (carnality), and worldliness. Such vision—as in the physical world, so in the spiritual world—will lead to confusion and disorientation.

We find two other references to the “evil eye” in Scripture. One is Matthew 20:15: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?” The other is Mark 7:22, the “evil eye” being one of the sins proceeding from man’s wicked heart: “Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:….” If you read the context of the Matthew verse, you will see the “evil eye” refers to materialism (greediness, envy). Also, see Matthew 6:19-34, which is the context of the verse cited at the beginning of this study. It too issues the following warning: no one can serve God and mammon (wealth deified or idolized).

By mentioning the “single” eye and the “evil” eye, the Lord Jesus Christ advises Israel to receive the spiritual light He is providing them during His earthly ministry. Remember, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path…. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psalm 119:105,130). However, apostate Israel is in unbelief, and is content to be in spiritual darkness. Satan’s evil world system has distracted them from the truth, God’s words to them. They refuse to hear, see, and believe. This is applicable not only to the nation Israel as a whole, but also individual Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah/Christ. They failed to appreciate Him because they were not thinking properly. Consequently, they murdered Him on Calvary’s cross!

While not written to or about us, the doctrine contained herein is transdispensational. It is true in any and every age, for Satan’s policy of evil is always designed to sidetrack people from listening to and believing God’s revelation to them. Brethren, may we have a “single” eye in this the Dispensation of the Grace of God—rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), understanding the Apostle Paul is Jesus Christ’s spokesman to us (Romans 11:13), heeding and trusting Romans through Philemon. Otherwise, we have an “evil” eye…and darkness…and confusion…and disorientation…and Christendom (Christendumb)!

Also see:
» What is the “madness” of Luke 6:11?
» What is a “lunatick?”
» How did Israel manipulate Moses to murder Messiah?
» If they were fulfilling Bible prophecy, how are Christ’s murderers culpable of wrongdoing?
» Who was more responsible for Jesus’ death—the Jews or the Romans?
» How could Israel welcome Messiah on Palm Sunday but then demand His death later that week?

How was Tarsus “no mean city?”, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

How was Tarsus “no mean city?”

HOW WAS TARSUS “NO MEAN CITY?”

by Shawn Brasseaux

When addressing the chief captain of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul stated in Acts 21:39: “I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.” In what sense was Tarsus not a “mean” city?

Usually, “mean” is used in the context of cruel or unpleasant. Yet, Paul was not saying, “Tarsus is not a harsh or unfriendly city.” The adjective can also mean “poor quality, lowly.” Adding “no” to “mean,” the implication is Tarsus is “no common, insignificant, or inferior city.” In fact, it was the capital or chief city of Cilicia (southeast Asia Minor, present Turkey).

According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary: “Even in the flourishing period of Greek history… a city of some considerable consequence. In the civil wars of Rome it took Caesar’s side, and on the occasion of a visit from him had its name changed to Juliopolis. Augustus made it a ‘free city.’ It was renowned as a place of education under the early Roman emperors. Strabo compares it in this respect to Athens and Alexandria. Tarsus also was a place of much commerce. It was situated in a wild and fertile plain on the banks of the Cydnus. No ruins of any importance remain.”

In calling his birthplace “no mean city,” Paul was arguing he could not be dismissed as some “uneducated country bumpkin born and raised in the middle of nowhere.” He was a free Roman citizen from a major city in the Empire, and he desired to address the Jewish people in Jerusalem. The chief captain ultimately granted him permission, and Paul delivered that famous speech that convicted apostate Israel and landed the Apostle in prison (see 21:40–22:30)!

Also see:
» Who was “Caesar?”
» Was Paul a false prophet?
» Why was Saul of Tarsus’ name changed to Paul?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, Why did Rachel want Leah’s mandrakes?

Why did Rachel want Leah’s mandrakes?

WHY DID RACHEL WANT LEAH’S MANDRAKES?

by Shawn Brasseaux

By today’s standards, the account of Leah’s mandrakes in Genesis chapter 30 is definitely weird. If, however, we look at it through the eyes (first and foremost) of faith as well as the eyes of history and culture, it will become a plain and simple passage.

Start reading at verses 14-15: “[14] And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son’s mandrakes. [15] And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son’s mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes.” Wheat harvest in Palestine was late spring, roughly May to June, indicating the time of year here. Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn and Leah’s son, discovers mandrakes (herbaceous plants) and gives them to his mother. Ever since verses 9-13, Leah has been barren. In ancient times, mandrake root was considered an aphrodisiac (sexual stimulant). Mandrake was also thought to cure female infertility because its fork-shaped root resembles a woman’s thighs. Jacob’s other wife, Rachel, is also infertile (verses 1-8). Rachel hears of Leah’s mandrakes and desires some, but Leah refuses and Rachel ultimately concedes their husband will have intimate relations with her sister and Leah will conceive.

Keep reading: “[16] And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. [17] And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son. [18] And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar. [19] And Leah conceived again, and bare Jacob the sixth son. [20] And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun. [21] And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah.” Wheat harvest still underway (verse 14), while Jacob returns from the field at even, Leah successfully uses the (aphrodisiac) mandrakes to entice him to have sexual intercourse with her. Ultimately, though, it is the LORD God who gives Leah conception of her fifth son with Jacob, the baby “Issachar” (Hebrew for “he will bring a reward”). Issachar is Jacob’s ninth boy. Leah bears one final son, “Zebulun” (Hebrew, “habitation”), so named because Jacob her husband will surely “dwell” with her instead of Rachel. Basically, Rachel and Leah were in a pregnancy competition!

Also see:
» What was wrong with Leah’s eyes?
» Why was the levirate marriage important in Bible times?
» Should a Christian be polygamous—having multiple spouses?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

What does “discomfit” mean?

WHAT DOES “DISCOMFIT” MEAN?

by Shawn Brasseaux

We find the verb “discomfit” nine times in the Authorized Version; its noun form, “discomfiture,” appears once. Although “discomfit” and “discomfort” are obviously related, they are not perfect synonyms. We must appreciate a distinguishing nuance. One who has been discomfited has also been discomforted, but one who has been discomforted has not necessarily been discomfited. Discomfit is a special type of discomfort or uneasiness. It is embarrassment on the battlefield—namely, a defeat. “Discomfit” is comprised of two Latin words: the prefix “dis–” (“reversal”) and “confect/conficere” (“put together”). Literally, the word carries the idea of scattering, as in troops being divided and thereby weakened. They would be put to shame indeed! (Similarly, “discomfort” would literally mean “reversed comfort.”) Notice “discomfit” in military contexts below.

  • Exodus 17:13: “And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.”
  • Numbers 14:45: “Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.”
  • Joshua 10:10: “And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.”
  • Judges 4:15: “And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.”
  • Judges 8:12: “And when Zebah and Zalmunna fled, he pursued after them, and took the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna, and discomfited all the host.”
  • 1 Samuel 7:10: “And as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel: but the LORD thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel.”
  • 1 Samuel 14:20: “And Saul and all the people that were with him assembled themselves, and they came to the battle: and, behold, every man’s sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture.”
  • 2 Samuel 22:15: “And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them.”
  • Psalm 18:14: “Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.”
  • Isaiah 31:8: “Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him: but he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited.”

Also see:
» What does “fetch a compass” mean?
» What does “under colour” mean in Acts 27:30?
» What does “Lord of Sabaoth” mean?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, What is the “bloody flux” of Acts 28:8?

What is the “bloody flux” of Acts 28:8?

WHAT IS THE “BLOODY FLUX” OF ACTS 28:8?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him” (Acts 28:8).

The Beloved Physician Luke (Colossians 4:14), whom the Holy Spirit moved to write the Book of Acts, draws our attention to a man on the island of Melita (modern Malta) suffering a particularly gruesome bodily affliction: the individual is sick with a “bloody flux.” In medical terms, “flux” (Latin, “flow”) is any fluid flowing from the body. Of course, we know what “blood” is. Luke used the word “dysenteria” (“dus/dys” is a Greek prefix meaning “difficulty, grievous;” “entos” refers to the bowel). Our modern medical term is a transliteration of that very word—dysentery. Essentially, it is a disease, usually caused by infection, characterized by severe diarrhea with passage of mucus and blood. In the case of Publius’ father, infection is involved, as he also suffers a fever.

Also see:
» What is “palsy?”
» What is “the botch of Egypt?”
» What are “emerods?”
» What is “the burning ague?”

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, What does “noisome” mean?

What does “noisome” mean?

WHAT DOES “NOISOME” MEAN?

by Shawn Brasseaux

The King James translators utilized “noisome” only four times. Our first clue concerning its meaning is that it always sits in a negative context.

  • Psalm 91:3: “Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.”
  • Ezekiel 14:15: “If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:….”
  • Ezekiel 14:21: “For thus saith the Lord GOD; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?”
  • Revelation 16:2: “And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.”

As we can see in the above verses and their contexts, Divine judgment is being meted out on idolatrous sinners. (Psalms contains a promise that believers will be protected.) The curses of the Law of Moses—Leviticus chapter 26 and Deuteronomy chapter 28—are being brought to pass. Ultimately, this foretells the LORD God’s wrath during Daniel’s 70th Week, yet future from us, with Israel’s believing remnant spared. (For more information on the Little Flock’s ministry during the Antichrist’s reign and this time of horrific punishment, see our “Mark 16:9-20” article linked below.) Associated diseases/plagues/pestilences and wild animals are described as “noisome.” Yet, contrary to what you might have assumed, friend, this has absolutely nothing to do with noise or sound.

“Noisome” in Middle English was spelled “noysome,” derived from the Anglo-French “anui” (“annoy, bother”). “Noy” is a shortened, obsolete form of “annoy;” thus, you can remember the meaning of “noisome” by altering it to “annoysome” (as in, “full of annoyance”). Applying this to beasts, the sense is thus violent or cruel; noisome diseases and pestilences are therefore destructive or harmful. They are foul, offensive, disgusting.

(Having been acquainted with “noisome,” may it henceforth not annoy us anymore!)

Also see:
» Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in the Bible?
» What is “palsy?”
» Can you explain 2 Kings 2:23-25?
» Did God create evil?
» What is “the botch of Egypt?”
» What are “emerods?”
» What is “the burning ague?”

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, What does “brutish” mean?

What does “brutish” mean?

WHAT DOES “BRUTISH” MEAN?

by Shawn Brasseaux

The Authorized Version mentions “brutish” individuals some 13 times. What is the implication? Before commenting, it is important we look at the verses first:

  • Psalm 49:10: “For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others.”
  • Psalm 92:6: “A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.”
  • Psalm 94:8: “Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?”
  • Proverbs 12:1: “Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.”
  • Proverbs 30:2: “Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.”
  • Isaiah 19:11: “Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?”
  • Jeremiah 10:8,14,21: “[8] But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities…. [14] Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them…. [21] For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.”
  • Jeremiah 51:17: “Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.”
  • Ezekiel 21:31: “And I will pour out mine indignation upon thee, I will blow against thee in the fire of my wrath, and deliver thee into the hand of brutish men, and skilful to destroy.”
  • 2 Peter 2:12: “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;….”
  • Jude 10: “But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.”

Using the context clues in these passages, we see “brutish” and “brute” are associated with foolishness—especially a lack of knowledge, wisdom, or understanding. Basically, it is to be irrational or stupid. By the way, the Greek word rendered “brute” in 2 Peter and Jude is “alogos” (literally “no thought”), translated “unreasonable” in Acts 25:27: “For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.”

Also see:
» What is the “madness” of Luke 6:11?
» What does “sottish” mean?
» What is a “lunatick?”