Category Archives: JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS / CONFUSING VERSES SIMPLIFIED, How is Joshua a high priest in Zechariah 3:8 if...?, How is Joshua a high priest in Zechariah 3:8 if...?, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

How is Joshua a high priest in Zechariah 3:8 if…?

HOW IS JOSHUA A HIGH PRIEST IN ZECHARIAH 3:8 IF HE WAS FROM THE TRIBE OF LEVI?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“Why is Joshua called a high priest in Zechariah 3:8, when he was from the tribe of Ephraim and not the tribe of Levi?” Good question!

You are inquiring about the verse that says: “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” The assumption here is that this is Moses’ successor Joshua. Is this supposition correct? We will examine the Bible text!

THE PRIESTLY TRIBE: LEVI

It is correct to say that Levi, not Ephraim, is the priestly tribe in Israel. The Bible says in Exodus 28:1: “And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.” God told Moses that he was to take his brother, Aaron, and Aaron’s four sons, and ordain them as priests in Israel. Moses, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons all belonged to the tribe of Levi (see Exodus 2:1-2,10; Exodus 4:14; et cetera). In fact, Moses and Aaron were great-grandsons of Levi (Exodus 6:16-20), Levi being one of the 12 sons of Jacob (Genesis 29:34), Jacob being the son of Isaac (Genesis 25:26), Isaac being the son of Abraham (Genesis 21:5).

Since Aaron the high priest and his sons (other priests) were members of the tribe of Levi, Levi became known as “the priestly tribe.” As per God’s instructions, only Levites were to be priests in Israel.

MOSES’ SUCCESSOR: JOSHUA, THE SON OF NUN

Every Bible student is at least somewhat acquainted with Moses’ “minister,” or servant (Exodus 24:3). This Joshua is frequently called “the son of Nun” (Exodus 33:11; et cetera)—and that title is very useful in singling him out (as we will see shortly). Just before Moses died, God had him appoint Joshua as his replacement to lead Israel into the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 31:14,23). Friend, in your question, you mentioned Joshua the son of Nun being from the tribe of Ephraim. That is correct, according to Numbers 13:8. There, he is called “Oshea;” in verse 16, Moses changed his name to “Jehoshua.” He was also known as “Joshua” and “Hoshea” (Numbers 14:6; Deuteronomy 32:44; et cetera). The Greek form of this name is “Jesus” (see Hebrews 4:8).

HIGH PRIEST: JOSHUA, THE SON OF JOSEDECH

As you pointed out, the Books of Haggai and Zechariah talk about a high priest named “Joshua” (see Haggai 1:1,12,14; Haggai 2:2,4; Zechariah 3:1,3,6,8-9; Zechariah 6:11). This Joshua bears the label “the son of Josedech” (Haggai 1:1,12,14; Haggai 2:2,4; Zechariah 6:11). He is therefore not to be confused with Joshua “the son of Nun” (Moses’ successor). Haggai and Zechariah lived approximately 1000 years after Joshua the son of Nun. The Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim died centuries prior to Haggai and Zechariah. The Joshua of Haggai and Zechariah’s day is the son of Josedech. He functions as a high priest because he is of Levi’s lineage. Joshua the son of Josedech is called “Jeshua” in Ezra and Nehemiah—contemporaries with Haggai and Zechariah. You may refer to Ezra 2:2; Ezra 3:2,8-9; Ezra 4:3; Ezra 5:2; Ezra 10:18; Nehemiah 7:7; and Nehemiah 12:1,7,10,26.

CONCLUSION

The Joshua of Zechariah (and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Haggai) is a high priest, living hundreds of years after Joshua, Moses’ successor, died. Joshua son of Josedech is of the tribe of Levi, functioning as a high priest. Joshua son of Nun is of the tribe of Ephraim, serving as Moses’ successor. There is no contradiction in the Bible, please understand. We are talking about two totally different Joshuas.

By the way, there were actually four Joshuas in the Bible. Firstly, the most famous Joshua, of course, was Moses’ replacement. Secondly, as we already discussed, there was the high priest named “Joshua” in Zechariah’s day. Thirdly, another man named “Joshua,” from Beth-shemesh, appears in 1 Samuel 6:14-18. Lastly, there was yet another Joshua—the governor of Jerusalem during King Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 23:8). These all lived centuries apart.

Also see:
» Why do 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9 contradict?
» What swallowed Jonah—a fish or a whale?
» Do Matthew 10:10, Mark 6:8, and Luke 9:3 contradict?

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, What does the King James Bible mean—“reins?”, What does the King James Bible mean—“reins?”

What does the King James Bible mean—“reins?”

WHAT DOES THE KING JAMES BIBLE MEAN—“REINS?”

by Shawn Brasseaux

On 15 occasions, the Authorized Version makes reference to “reins.” Most of these are found in the “Old Testament.” As a brief introduction, we look at few of a couple of those verses right now. Psalm 7:9 says: “Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.” And, Jeremiah 20:12: “But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, and seest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I opened my cause.” What are such “reins?” Why this curious word?

The Hebrew word usually rendered “reins” is כִּלְיָה, or kilyah (Strong’s #H3629). Kilyah appears 31 times in the Hebrew Bible. Our 1611 translators translated it as “kidneys” 18 times and “reins” 13 times. (Another Hebrew word—חָלָץ, or chalats [Strong’s #H2504]—is rendered “reins” in Isaiah 11:5. This gives a total of 14 Old Testament usages of “reins.”) The word “kidneys” is generally restricted to the literal, fleshly organs of sacrificial animals offered in Judaism—Exodus 29:13, Exodus 29:22, Leviticus 3:4, Leviticus 3:10, Leviticus 3:15, Leviticus 4:9, Leviticus 7:4, Leviticus 8:16, Leviticus 8:25, Leviticus 9:10, and Leviticus 9:19. There are two figurative usages of “kidneys” in Deuteronomy 32:14 and Isaiah 34:6. “Reins” in the Greek New Testament is νεφρός, or nephros, (Strong’s #G3510). It appears only once—Revelation 2:23.

Now, to the English word. “Reins” is a form of the Middle English reines, reenes; which was derived from the Old French reins; which was taken from the Latin rēnēs meaning “kidneys, loins” (plural). Even today, modern-day medical terms reflect the Greek, Latin, French, and English etymologies. Have you ever heard of renal failure—the kidney(s) malfunctioning? The medical study of kidney diseases is called nephrology—reflecting the Greek word, of course. Medical science dealing with the function of kidneys is known as renal physiology. Now that we know how “kidneys” and “reins” are connected, how should we handle the King James verses that say God is interested in seeing and knowing our “reins?” Is God really concerned with our kidneys?

In ancient times, kidneys (hidden inside our torso, or loins) were assumed to be the seat of our emotions, feelings, and affections. “Reins” is related to our literal kidneys. However, “reins” can also be used figuratively in reference to our innermost component (again, emotions, feelings, affections; mind). For the record, Strong’s Concordance has the following definition for the Hebrew word kilyah (#H3629): “feminine of H3627 (only in the plural); a kidney (as an essential organ); figuratively, the mind (as the interior self):—kidneys, reins.” Strong’s defines the Greek word nephros (#G3510) as: “of uncertain affinity; a kidney (plural), i.e. (figuratively) the inmost mind:—reins.”

The “reins,” are actually the mind, rather than the heart (another part of our innermost being), since some verses (see below) use both “reins” and “heart.” However, the King James Bible translators are not wrong in using “reins” to refer to something other than literal kidneys. They are using the word in a figurative sense to indicate the mind, as you can now see for yourself.

  • Job 16:13: “His archers compass me round about, he cleaveth my reins asunder, and doth not spare; he poureth out my gall upon the ground.”
  • Job 19:27: “Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.”
  • Psalm 7:9: “Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.”
  • Psalm 16:7: “I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.”
  • Psalm 26:2: “Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart.”
  • Psalm 73:21: “Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins.”
  • Psalm 139:13: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.”
  • Proverbs 23:16: “Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.”
  • Isaiah 11:5: “And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.” (Jesus Christ as He reigns in the Millennium!)
  • Jeremiah 11:20: “But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause.”
  • Jeremiah 12:2: “Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root: they grow, yea, they bring forth fruit: thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins.”
  • Jeremiah 17:10: “I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”
  • Jeremiah 20:12: “But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, and seest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I opened my cause.”
  • Lamentations 3:13: “He hath caused the arrows of his quiver to enter into my reins.”
  • Revelation 2:23: “And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

Also see:
» What is “the foolishness of God” in 1 Corinthians 1:25?
» Are we created in “the image of God?”
» What are “phylacteries?”

Did little boy Jesus know He was going to die on Calvary?, Did little boy Jesus know He was going to die on Calvary?, GOD, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

Did little boy Jesus know He was going to die on Calvary?

DID LITTLE BOY JESUS KNOW HE WAS GOING TO DIE ON CALVARY?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Someone recently asked me if Jesus Christ—as a “preteen” and/or teenager—knew He was going to suffer and die so graphically on that awful Roman cross. Did our Lord live His entire earthly life with that macabre awareness? Or did such cognizance come near the end of His life? Beloved, there are various verses that shed light on this most tantalizing subject, and we would do well to consider them.

The Incarnation—the process of God becoming Man—is perhaps the most difficult Bible teaching. We will never fully understand it in this life because our minds are finite, limited. Even though we cannot explain that doctrine 100 percent, that does not mean we have license to be totally ignorant of it. The Bible affords us certain clues about the Incarnation: if we are diligent Bible students, we will look for and find them in the Scriptures. We need not sit in spiritual darkness when God’s Word can shed light! “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psalm 119:130).

In relationship to the question at hand, we know that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully Man. He was not 50 percent God and 50 percent Man. (One common misconception.) He was not 0 percent God and 100 percent Man. (Another common misconception.) He was not 100 percent God and 0 percent Man. (Yet another common misconception.) Friends, the Lord Jesus Christ was 100 percent God and 100 percent Man. He was not diminished Deity: He simply added humanity to that Deity. Jesus Christ has always been God, but He has only been a Man for about 2,000 years. From the Scriptural record, we learn that Jesus grew physically, spiritually, and mentally… no different from us. Just like us, He had to learn by experience. Leaving the virgin Mary’s womb as a small Baby, Jesus grew up little by little to become a 30-year-old Man (see Luke 3:23).

Look at Luke chapter 2, especially verses 40 and 52: “[40] And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. [41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. [42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. [43] And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. [44] But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. [45] And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. [47] And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. [48] And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. [49] And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? [50] And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. [51] And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. [52] And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

Again, read verses 40 and 52: “[40] And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him…. [52] And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” The Lord Jesus, up until the age of 30, is said to have “waxed [grown] strong in spirit,” “filled with wisdom,” “the grace of God being upon him,” “increasing in wisdom and stature,” and “increasing in favour with God and man.” His body grew taller and stronger physically. He grew mentally and spiritually as well. Like other little Jewish boys, He had school to attend. Also, we know He began to follow His foster father, Joseph, in carpentry. That is, He began to learn a trade of architecture and manual labor. For that reason, the common Jews were accustomed to referring to Jesus as “the carpenter, the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3).

Isaiah 50:4-6, circa 700 years before God became a Man, provides a small prophetic glimpse into Jesus’ life, especially His innermost feelings: “[4] The LORD God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. [5] The LORD God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. [6] I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”

Father God “wakened” and taught Jesus Christ “morning by morning.” That is, every morning, the Lord Jesus reflected on the Scriptures and communed with His Heavenly Father. Remember, at that time, all Israel had access to was what we call the “Old Testament,” the Books of Genesis to Malachi. Still, whatever limited divine revelation there was, Jesus was willing to hear it and obey it. He wanted to be in perfect accordance with His Father’s will for His life. There was complete, unwavering loyalty. It was in that point that Jesus, though Man, was completely unlike us. He never failed; He was humanity as God had created Adam (before Adam’s fall into sin).

“The LORD God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.” Friends, we could never say such a thing and mean it! However, the Lord Jesus could and did! The writer of Hebrews told Israel: “Jesus the Son of God…. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:15). Even when it came to His suffering, He was willing to obey His Father’s will, fully compliant to shed His blood (see Hebrews chapter 10 in its entirety). Isaiah quoted Jesus centuries in advance: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”

The Holy Spirit, in retrospect to Christ’s earthly ministry, commented through the Apostle Paul in Philippians chapter 2: “[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

According to the Prophet Isaiah, as we read earlier, Jesus read the Scriptures every chance He had, especially in the synagogues on the Sabbath. Just as we would read the Bible and better understand where we fit in it, Jesus would read the Bible and better understand where He fit in it. He became more and more aware of His mission to be Israel’s chief spiritual Teacher, and He was willing to teach Israel of her mission and His as well (see Luke 4:16-21—the beginning of His ministry). His Father was training Him, just as a son would serve his father as an apprentice in the family business. (In a similar incident, a divinely-ordained parallel no doubt, His foster father had trained him in his own trade.)

We saw earlier how Luke 2:46-47 says Jesus was sitting at the Temple, with the rabbinical (Jewish religious) scholars around Him, listening to them and asking them questions. The Bible says: “And it came to pass, that after three days they [Joseph and Mary] found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.” Verse 42 claims Jesus was merely 12 years old here! These (probably aged) doctors of theology were amazed at how wise and articulate this little boy was. He surely put them to shame when it came to knowing and understanding Bible doctrine!

Luke 2:48-50 says: “And when they [Joseph and Mary] saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.”

Joseph and Mary were also surprised to find Jesus sitting amongst such “scholars” and engaging in dialog with them! When Mary rebuked Him for staying behind, saying He had giving His “father” and mother a hard time, He corrected her: “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” That is, “Do you not know that I must be concerned with My Father’s business?” Jesus objected to Mary calling Joseph his “father.” (Yet the modern English versions call “Joseph” just that—Jesus’ “father”—on one occasion in the passage [verse 33]. Furthermore, when our King James reads “Joseph and his mother” in verse 43, modern versions say “his parents!”)

Even at age 12, Jesus said, “I must be about my Father’s business.” Surely, He did not know everything in the Bible at this point in life. Still, He knew enough to communicate it to others and amaze them with those words of life. From here onward to age 30—another 18 years—the Lord Jesus came to better understand that His Father’s “business” involved three years of Him preaching, teaching, and performing miracles.

My own personal belief, which you can accept or reject, is Jesus gradually began to understand the concept of death like any other person. It did not come in His first few years of life, but it surely came by the time He reached adulthood. There came a day when young Jesus finally saw the cross in His future. As He studied the Scriptures and prayed to His Father in light of them, it became increasingly clear. Eventually, He began to see Himself in those Old Testament verses that talked about Him as Messiah suffering and dying (Psalm 22, Isaiah chapter 53, and so on). As a child, Jesus probably did not know about Calvary. No child can understand the horrors of such a graphic death. Father God may have shielded young Jesus from that as well. There is nothing in the Bible to cause us to assume Jesus spent His childhood fearful or depressed because of the cross. But, we do know that, toward the end of His life, He began to speak more and more to His disciples concerning His impending death. On the night of His arrest, and hours before His crucifixion, our Lord Jesus came to fully understand the immense suffering He would experience shortly—not just physical, but spiritual as well. Being a Man, He had great difficulty coming to terms with it.

We find the first hint of this in Matthew 26:37-39: “[37] And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. [38] Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. [39] And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” The Lord Jesus is deeply troubled, far beyond words. Mark 14:33-34 is the companion passage: “[33] And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; [34] And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.”

The Lord Jesus can only pray that His Father give Him strength to do His will rather than His own will. Luke 22:37 says: “For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.” Verses 40-44 are most difficult for us to read: “[40] And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. [41] And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, [42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. [43] And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. [44] And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” There is great distress here, fear and anguish. He realizes He is about to experience the undiluted wrath of His Father! His soul will be offered as a sacrifice for our sins! He sees it now as never before! He knows the Cross is just hours away!

In the above prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, we see Jesus, although equal with the Father, willfully submitting to the Father’s will. That is, the Incarnation was Jesus’ submission among His equals (Father God and God the Holy Ghost). For sake of brevity, we stop here and present a summary.

CONCLUSION

The Lord Jesus was 100 percent God and 100 percent Man. It is important that we not overlook either nature, as some have done and still do today. We do not fully grasp that but we believe it because the Bible makes it abundantly clear. Notice these sample verses: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” (John 1:1,14). “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Bible is not clear just how much spiritual understanding Jesus had as a child—as in pre-adolescent and early adulthood (late teens)—with respect to Calvary’s reality. Yet, there are things we DO know from the Bible. He, a human like us, grew every which way we do. There was physical maturity, spiritual maturity, and mental maturity in the life of Christ. He grew taller and stronger. Also, by careful study of the Scripture, and daily prayer, He increased in understanding Father God’s will for Him. Even at age 12, He definitely had a profound grasp of the Scriptures.

Jesus Christ lived the next 18 years of His earthly life studying and praying, preparing for His ministry. By age 30, He had matured enough to become a mighty spiritual leader. Surely, He grew exponentially during those final three years of life. Just moments before His arrest, and hours prior to His crucifixion, He had the clearest grasp of His Father’s will He had ever had. We can see that most clearly in His prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. His Father’s will was that He die for Israel’s sins (and ultimately, for all of mankind’s sins), and He resolved to go through with it all the way.

My own personal idea is that Jesus did not have knowledge of Calvary until several years into life. I do not believe He spent His childhood despondent concerning His death. However, perhaps as early as in His teenage years, He realized He would have to die the most horrible way ever devised. Whenever He finally reached that point of maturity—where He could fully cooperate with His Heavenly Father in accomplishing everything He wanted—He entered the ministry. The more He studied and prayed, the more He saw His Father’s will for Him, and when He saw that that will would lead Him up to that Cross, He submitted Himself and did it! 🙂

Also see:
» “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head?”
» How does one know if he or she is maturing in the Word of God?
» What is the Lord’s will for my Christian life?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, What was wrong with Leah’s eyes?

What was wrong with Leah’s eyes?

WHAT WAS WRONG WITH LEAH’S EYES?

by Shawn Brasseaux

The Bible says in Genesis 29:17: “Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.” What does Scripture mean that Leah was “tender eyed?” It is a difficult verse at first glance. English Bible readers have wondered if this is another way of saying her eyes were deformed (cross-eyed, lazy-eyed, or the like). Even some translators have confessed trouble with this expression. Exactly what was wrong with Leah’s eyes?

As a general rule of thumb, friend, whenever we struggle with a particular Bible word or phrase, we should scan the surrounding words and/or verses. The conjunction “but” in the middle of this verse actually provides us with context clues to grasp the meaning of “tender eyed.” Rachel is said to be “beautiful and well favoured.” “But”—opposite of Rachel’s appearance—Leah is “tender eyed.” That is, Leah had eyes that were not special looking. Unlike her younger sister Rachel, Leah was ordinary looking, what we might call a “plain Jane.” There were no striking features about Leah’s face or appearance, with particular emphasis on her eyes. (Perhaps she had dull or pale-colored irises instead of striking dark ones?) Whatever the case was, Leah was unattractive, so Jacob preferred to marry her (beautiful) sister Rachel.

By the way, let me point out that, through elaborate scheming of Laban, these sisters’ father, Jacob ended up marrying both women (Leah and Rachel were also Jacob’s first-cousins). Leah gave birth to six of the 12 tribes of Israel—Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Rachel became the mother of two other tribes—Joseph and Benjamin. See Genesis chapters 29-30. It is interesting to realize that the “ugly” wife actually contributed more to the formation of the nation Israel than the beautiful one! Furthermore, the Bible says Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:33-34)—Leah carried the Messianic bloodline and was Jesus’ ancestor! (Physical appearance is irrelevant in God’s eyes.)

SUPPLEMENTAL: MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS AND “DIFFICULT” GENESIS 29:17

Modern English versions actually disagree on how to translate the Hebrew word for “tender.” Some translations contradict each other—“lovely,” “nice,” “attractive,” “ordinary” versus “didn’t sparkle,” “tender,” “delicate,” “weak!” Behold the confusion! They would rather change the “offensive” precious words of God than “insult” Leah! Another example of typical, modern-day, watering-down of God’s Word within “scholarly” circles!

  • American Standard Version: “And Leah’s eyes were tender; but Rachel was beautiful and well-favored.”
  • Amplified Bible: “Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance.”
  • Contemporary English Version: “Leah was older than Rachel, but her eyes didn’t sparkle, while Rachel was beautiful and had a good figure.”
  • God’s Word Version: “Leah had attractive eyes, but Rachel had a beautiful figure and beautiful features.”
  • Holman Christian Standard Bible: “Leah had ordinary eyes, but Rachel was shapely and beautiful.”
  • The Living Bible: “Leah had lovely eyes, but Rachel was shapely, and in every way a beauty.”
  • The Message: “Leah had nice eyes, but Rachel was stunningly beautiful.”
  • New American (Catholic) Bible: “Leah had lovely eyes, but Rachel was well formed and beautiful.” (Footnote: “Lovely eyes: the adjective modifying eyes is often translated as ‘weak,’ but ‘lovely’ is the more probable word.”) ?!?! If that be the case, Leah and Rachel both having nice eyes, then why have the contrasting conjunction “but?”
  • New American Standard Bible: “And Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful of form and face.”
  • New Century Version: “Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel was very beautiful.”
  • New International Version: “Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful.”
  • New King James Version: “Leah’s eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance.
  • New Living Translation: “There was no sparkle in Leah’s eyes, but Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face.”
  • New Revised Standard Version: “Leah’s eyes were lovely, and Rachel was graceful and beautiful.”
  • Revised Standard Version: “Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful and lovely.”
  • The VOICE: “There was no brightness to Leah’s eyes, but Rachel had a beautiful shape and was lovely to look at.”

Also see:
» How many daughters did Lot have?
» How could ‘wise’ King Solomon let foreign women deceive him?
» Can God really use even me?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, Why did God want to kill Moses in Exodus 4:24?

Why did God want to kill Moses in Exodus 4:24?

WHY DID GOD WANT TO KILL MOSES IN EXODUS 4:24?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Exodus chapter 4 says: “[24] And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. [25] Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. [26] So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.” This is a very strange and intense passage. Yet, it is true. The Bible says God actually wanted to kill Moses! Why was God so harsh? Was God not extreme in seeking Moses’ life simply because he had not circumcised his son? We will take our Bibles and search the Scriptures for enlightenment.

God’s words in the previous verses help us. Exodus chapter 4 again: “[21] And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. [22] And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: [23] And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”

Israel was God’s “firstborn son,” meaning His nation of servants. The Abrahamic Covenant was the first and foremost agreement that set Israel aside as God’s nation. We must consult Genesis chapter 17 at this point. About 450 years prior to Moses in Exodus chapter 4, the LORD God appeared to Abraham (still called “Abram” at that time) to tell him more about the Abrahamic Covenant he had first given him back in chapter 12 many years earlier.

Genesis chapter 17: “[1] And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. [2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. [3] And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, [4] As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. [5] Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. [6] And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. [7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. [8] And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

“[9] And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. [10] This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. [11] And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. [12] And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. [13] He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [14] And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”

Physical circumcision was not an option in Israel’s program. God had commanded—not requested—that every male descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be physically circumcised. Why? That physical circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, and that covenant gave Israel her identity as God’s (set-apart) nation. As Acts 7:8 says, the Abrahamic Covenant is “the covenant of circumcision.” Yet, here was Moses in Exodus chapter 4, the leader of Israel, and he had a son whose physical appearance did not reflect his nation’s spiritual standing before JEHOVAH God. Moses’ son did not the physical circumcision that his nation’s covenant demanded. Genesis 17:14 had said: “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” It was a most serious problem for Moses’ son to be uncircumcised!

Moses’ wife Zipporah called him a “bloody husband” because of the circumcision she had to perform on their son (Exodus 4:26). She greatly disliked this rite but executed it in a successful attempt to spare Moses’ life. Exactly why Moses had not circumcised his son is not stated in Scripture. Yet, we know Moses, his wife, and their son lived with the Midianites (Moses’ wife’s family) for 40 years (see Exodus 2:15–Exodus 3:1). They may have influenced Moses not to do it. Since returning to Egypt with him, and in a matter of life or death, however, Moses’ wife was forced to do it and she did it!

Also see:
» Was God “unfair” in striking Uzzah dead?
» Why did Israel have to keep so many strange laws?
» Was God “unfair” to punish us for Adam’s sin?

JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, Was King Nebuchadnezzar a saved man?

Was King Nebuchadnezzar a saved man?

WAS KING NEBUCHADNEZZAR A SAVED MAN?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Yes, on the basis of Daniel 4:37, I would say that pagan Nebuchadnezzar finally “came to his senses” (literally speaking). “Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.” We will take some time to survey parts of the book of the Prophet Daniel.

Nebuchadnezzar was not speaking these words lightly. If you read the first three chapters of Daniel, you can see how Nebuchadnezzar was a very prideful idolater. As a Babylonian king, and like the Egyptian pharaohs, he thought he was a god. Nebuchadnezzar was a very strict, totalitarian ruler. If he did not get what he wanted, he put people to death! In chapter 4, however, we see his pride and idolatry reach an apex. Israel’s God struck down Nebuchadnezzar so hard that he became the humblest world leader of the day.

Daniel chapter 4 begins: “[1] Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. [2] I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me. [3] How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.” Nebuchadnezzar, in hindsight, is going to explain to us the valuable lesson that Israel’s God taught him.

King Nebuchadnezzar’s pride is epitomized in verse 30: “The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” Nebuchadnezzar is saying, “Look at all what I have done! My beautiful, expansive kingdom is all for me! I have conquered so many peoples! They are all under my control!” (He, of course, is unaware that there is another king, the King of Heaven, who hears his arrogant words. Nebuchadnezzar will now be humbled beyond imagination! No human leader has ever experienced what he will soon endure!)

Daniel chapter 4 continues: “[31] While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. [32] And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times [years] shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. [33] The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. [34] And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: [35] And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? [36] At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. [37] Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.”

Nebuchadnezzar was truly a changed man, both in heart and in body. I genuinely think we will see him in Heaven one day. The words he spoke could only come from a believer.

Also see:
» Why did God give Israel King Saul if Saul turned out to be evil?
» What about the “divine right of kings?”
» How could “wise” King Solomon let foreign women deceive him?

Enjoy our Bible Q&A studies? Please feel free to donate here: https://www.paypal.me/ShawnBrasseaux. Also be mindful of our Bible Q&A booklets for sale at https://arcgraceministries.org/in-print/booklets-bible-q-a/.

How was Paul “rude in speech?”, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

How was Paul “rude in speech?”

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE MEAN, PAUL WAS “RUDE IN SPEECH?”

by Shawn Brasseaux

“But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge…” (2 Corinthians 11:6a). Just how was Paul “rude?”

The Greek word translated “rude” in here is idiotes (from which we get “idiot”). It would be helpful to see how our 1611 translators rendered that word elsewhere.

First, Acts 4:13: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Then, 1 Corinthians 14:16: “Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” The word “unlearned” appears in verses 23 and 24 as well. “Ignorant” or “unlearned” means “untaught, uneducated, in a particular subject.”

“Rude” in 2 Corinthians 11:6 did not mean that Paul spoke offensive, nasty language; it was “rude” as in rudimentary (basic, simple, plain). Paul knew proper Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic—he had been trained under the guidance of Gamaliel, the chief rabbi of that time. He was highly educated in literature, history, and religion. Jesus Christ even taught him doctrine never before revealed. In short, Paul was no idiot. But, he did not use his education to form statements that would manipulate people to make them do or believe. Unlike Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), Paul chose not to be an eloquent speaker.

“[1] And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. [4] And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: [5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:1,4,5).

Many church leaders need to understand this simple fact. According to God the Holy Spirit, it is not about using highly technical theological terms and defending complex denominational dogmas. It is all about using plain, simple language that common people (even children) can understand and believe. Remember, the King James Bible is sixth-grade English for a reason!

Also see:
» What does, “Quit you like men,” mean?
» What does “Lord of Sabaoth” mean?
» What does “kicking against the pricks” mean?

Can you summarize the Bible in three verses?, Can you summarize the Bible in three verses?, DISPENSATIONAL BIBLE STUDY, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

Can you summarize the Bible in three verses?

HOW CAN WE SUMMARIZE THE BIBLE IN THREE VERSES?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psalm 119:130). All the complicated theological systems and arguments and denominations aside, the Holy Bible can be summarized with three simple verses!

Our King James Bible contains 66 books; 1,189 chapters; 31,101 verses; and 791,328 words. God has much to say, and “every word” is important (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4). However, the entire Bible can be summarized with three verses:

  1. “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” (Ephesians 1:10). God the Father’s purpose in creation is to make everything subject unto His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The governments of heaven and earth are to glorify and bring honor to Jesus Christ’s name by valuing, believing, and carrying out His doctrine.
  2. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12). There is an adversary, Satan, whose goal is to prevent #1 from being brought to fruition. Thus, the Bible contains accounts of Satan’s evil plan—man’s fall, the fall of angels, the antichrist, false teaching, et cetera—which is sinful rebellion against the Creator God.
  3. “There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand” (Proverbs 19:21). Man has willingly sided with Satan’s policy of evil (#2) in hindering God’s purpose and plan for creation. Thus, Scripture is filled with innumerable accounts of murderers, liars, idolaters, blasphemers, thieves, fornicators and adulterers, conspirators, and so on. However, God’s Word is very clear—despite Satan and man’s unwavering opposition against their Creator’s will, God’s original purpose of creation will still come to pass. In eternity future, Jesus Christ will receive everlasting praise and glory in both heaven (through the Church the Body of Christ) and in the earth (through redeemed Israel).

“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).

Also see:
» What is dispensational Bible study?
» Does it matter what Bible version I use?
» What is the Dispensation of Grace?

“Epistle” and “letter”—same or different?, “Epistle” and “letter”—same or different?, BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS

“Epistle” and “letter”—same or different?

“EPISTLE” AND “LETTER”—SAME OR DIFFERENT?

by Shawn Brasseaux

The Greek word epistolē appears 24 times in 23 verses found in the King James Bible’s “New Testament” Scriptures. On 15 occasions, it is rendered “epistle(s).” It is translated “letter(s)” the remaining nine times. While they are the same in Greek, there is a difference in English. This Bible study will highlight that distinction.

Once, while I was speaking to one church member about “Paul’s epistles,” she stopped me and asked me what an “epistle” was. I was utterly amazed that, here she was, attending a so-called “Bible-believing church,” and she had never heard this Bible term before. Evidently, her pastor and her Bible teacher had never used that term. Her modern English “bible” version did not have that word either. It used the word “letter” instead. (Modern English translations of the Scriptures have robbed readers in numerous ways. Here is but another example of them omitting more precise terms and replacing them with generalized ones.)

Make no mistake about it, dear friends. There is a difference between an epistle and a letter, so these terms cannot always be used interchangeably. A letter is a form of written communication. It can be for personal/pleasure reasons, business reasons, and so on. However, a letter does not necessarily include teaching. An epistle is a letter, yes, but a very special kind of letter. All epistles are letters, but not all letters are epistles. Consider this easy example. While all instruction manuals are books, not all books are instruction manuals. By changing the noun from “books” to the restrictive “instruction manuals,” we are eliminating novels, phone books, and all other non-educational reading materials. “Epistles” limits the letters to educational resources. An epistle is doctrinal or instructional in nature—a letter from a teacher to a student.

When people talk about the so-called “letters” of the New Testament Scriptures, what they really mean is “epistles.” Those books are not merely friendship letters, although they do contain personal greetings in their openings and closings. More than anything, however, they are doctrinal works with tremendous teaching value. They contain doctrine meant to educate their readers concerning the purpose and plan of God. Epistles contain God’s various instructions to their recipients—who they are to Him, what He has done (or will do) to and/or for them, what they should believe, how they should behave, their destiny in God’s program, and so on.

With that said, we will look at the King James Bible’s various uses of the word epistolē, and we will notice how it can function as a general or specific noun:

  • Acts 9:2: “And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.” (“Letters” here is general, as in “permission slips,” so the more specific “epistles” is unnecessary. No teaching is involved.)
  • Acts 15:30: “So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:” (This “epistle” was more than a letter; it was doctrinal, containing instructions. Leaders of the Jerusalem Church had written this to Paul’s Gentile converts, expecting them to abide by its words.)
  • Acts 22:5: “As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.” (As with Acts 9:2, “letters” here is general. They are “permission slips,” making the more specific “epistles” unnecessary. No teaching is involved here, either.)
  • Acts 23:25: “And he wrote a letter after this manner:” (“Letter” here is general, so the more specific “epistle” is unnecessary. It is interesting to note that this “letter” is later called an “epistle” [verse 33]—see next bullet point. This shows us that, on some occasions, “epistle” and “letter” are interchangeable. However, please be mindful that this is the exception rather than the rule.)
  • Acts 23:33: “Who, when they came to Caesarea, and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him.” (The more specific “epistle” is needed because the governor is being educated, brought up-to-date, concerning Paul’s predicament. He has read the letter and been informed. While not in the Greek, our 1611 KJV translators then added the words “the letter” in verse 34 to complete the thought.)
  • Romans 16:22: “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.” (The more precise “epistle” is necessary because Romans is a doctrinal book, not just a casual letter filled with “chit-chat.”)
  • 1 Corinthians 5:9: “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:” (Like Romans above, the more specific term “epistle” is necessary here since Paul’s letter to Corinth had doctrinal content, teaching material.)
  • 1 Corinthians 16:3: “And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.” (The general word “letters” is sufficient here because these are not teaching books, merely “permission slips” concerning who will take up a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem.)
  • 2 Corinthians 3:1: “Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?” (The more specific “epistles” is necessary here since they, had they existed, would have been letters teaching on Paul’s apostleship. They would have been more than letters, though. They would have been what we would call “teaching letters,” or precisely, “epistles.”
  • 2 Corinthians 3:2: “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:” (The more exact “epistle” is necessary here because the Corinthians, in their behavior, were communicating doctrine to their observers.)
  • 2 Corinthians 3:3: “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (The more exact “epistle” is necessary here because the Corinthians, in their behavior, were communicating doctrine to those who observed them.)
  • 2 Corinthians 7:8: “For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.” (“Letter” here means it is a written statement Paul had sent to them. The more exact “epistle” is necessary in that it instructed the Corinthians to the extent it made them “sorry” of their disobedience.)
  • 2 Corinthians 10:9: “That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.” (The general word “letters” is all that is needed. There is nothing here about instruction.)
  • 2 Corinthians 10:10: “For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” (Again, the general word “letters” is sufficient. No instruction here.)
  • 2 Corinthians 10:11: “Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.” (Once more, the general word “letters” is enough. No instruction is here.)
  • Colossians 4:16: “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Like Romans, earlier, Colossians is a special letter, a teaching letter—an “epistle.”)
  • 1 Thessalonians 5:27: “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.” (Like Romans and Colossians, earlier, 1 Thessalonians is a special letter, a teaching letter—an “epistle.”)
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:2: “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.” (Once more, the general word “letter” is enough. It was a written communication to which someone had forged the Apostle Paul’s name.)
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (Here, notice the link between being “taught” and an “epistle.” Paul’s “epistles” were instructional materials.)
  • 2 Thessalonians 3:14: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” (Like Romans, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians, the Book of 2 Thessalonians is also a teaching letter—an “epistle.”)
  • 2 Thessalonians 3:17: “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.” (Again, Paul’s “epistles” were teaching materials.)
  • 2 Peter 3:1: “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:” (And, again, Peter’s “epistles” were teaching materials.)
  • 2 Peter 3:16: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (As the Holy Spirit led Peter to affirm, Paul’s “epistles” were teaching materials.)

CONCLUSION

While “epistle” and “letter” are the same Greek word (epistolē), the English language allows us to appreciate a nuance. All epistles are letters, but not all letters are epistles. An epistle is a very special letter: it is doctrinal, didactic, or instructional in nature. Remember, an epistle is a letter from teacher to student. It would be more than a “Hi, how are you? I am doing well…” letter. An epistle would be advice on how to think about a certain topic, how to understand not just terms and definitions but the actual concepts of that topic, and how to apply that knowledge to life and/or other disciplines.

Although modern-English-version people have grown accustomed to using the word “letter,” the more precise term is “epistle.” When referring to the Bible books such as Romans, Hebrews, Philemon, or Jude, it would be beneficial to our hearers if we called them “epistles.” They are “the Epistle to the Romans” (not “the Letter to the Romans”), “the Epistle to the Hebrews” (not “the Letter to the Hebrews”), “the Epistle to Philemon” (not “the Letter to Philemon”), and “the Epistle of Jude” (not “the Letter of Jude”).

Now, we must answer this anticipated objection: “Brother Shawn, you said it yourself. Since the modern English versions are so common, almost no one knows what an ‘epistle’ is anyway. Should we not just use ‘letter?’” Friend, let me remind you that our job as Bible believers is to teach the Bible to those who find it confusing. Before we go around teaching others, we had better know the material ourselves! We simply use the term “epistle,” and then define it for our audience. (The job of the teacher is to teach!!!) We tell them, “An epistle is a letter of instruction, doctrine, or teaching.” We need not change words in the King James Bible we find difficult or obsolete. We leave them where they are in the Bible, and we define them! Let us not get angry with our Bible because it uses words we do not know. Our King James Bible will teach us much—not only about God’s thoughts, but about our own English language. I mean, come on, my friends. We are going to teach our audience a new word—“epistle”—and, by doing so, we will be an “epistle” (teaching device) ourselves!

NOTICE: The 2016 Slidell Grace Bible Conference is less than a month away! This is our 5th annual conference, just outside of New Orleans, December 2-4. Speakers are Richard Jordan, John Smith, and I (Shawn Brasseaux). Please see this flyer for more details: https://arcministries.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/2016-slidell-gbc.pdf. We would love to have you join us!

Also see:
» Does it matter which Bible version I use?
» Why do I get nothing out of the Bible when I read it?
» How does one know if he or she is maturing in the Word of God?

GRACE (CHRISTIAN) LIVING, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, Should Bible questions be discouraged?, Should Bible questions be discouraged?

Should Bible questions be discouraged?

SHOULD BIBLE QUESTIONS BE DISCOURAGED?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes” (2 Timothy 2:23). Bible questions are okay, provided they are neither “foolish” nor “unlearned.”

TO THE STUDENT

Sadly, in so many religious circles, Bible questions are largely forbidden. For instance, read this: “When I contacted ____ he was very nasty to me and said I was wasting his time with my questions.” Someone wrote this to me a few years ago, after a so-called “grace” Bible teacher rudely discouraged Bible questions that his teachings generated. Why was that teacher so uninterested in questions that I was glad to answer for the dear man? Call me crazy, but I think that teacher refused to be “cross-examined,” or, frankly, “challenged.”

Many years ago, a seminarian training to be a priest was curious about his church’s true teachings. Well, as he put it, “The more questions I asked, the cleaner the seminary became!” His professors, unwilling to “suffer” “tough” questions (they had no answers for him), gave him “work-detail.” He had 32 hours straight of cleaning the seminary, including scrubbing floors with toothbrushes, before having to return to class hungry and tired. Oh, I forgot. With 152 acres of trees located behind the seminary, each student was also given an acre of leaves to rake. A truck would then carry the leaves over to the same place. After the leaves were re-spread, they had to be re-raked! (With this cycle of repetitious duties, there would be no time for “wandering minds” and “silly questions” to challenge the religious institution.)

Oh, but you see, dear friends, the Bible never discouraged questions. Second Timothy prohibits “foolish and unlearned questions.” Questions help us to learn; God wants us to learn His Word. The Bible never says, “But questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.” It says “foolish [moros, as in ‘moron’] and unlearned questions.” These are pointless, absurd questions that cause people to bicker, with more time arguing than answering. Spiritual maturity allows you to “rate” questions asked of you. You spend your time doing it long enough, and you can you most definitely identify the “foolish and unlearned questions.” Avoid them, but, by all means, use the Bible to answer the rest!

FROM THE TEACHER

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes” (2 Timothy 2:23). The servant of the Lord must carefully choose questions about the Bible.

As a Bible teacher, it is exciting for me to hear from Bible students who are so engaged in Scripture that they ask questions. Some questions are so very easy they can be answered quite quickly. Others require a great deal of study—yes, months or years in some cases!

Bible questions allow me to assess where others are in their Scriptural understanding. It also enables me to see where I am in my own understanding, and where I could use improvement and enlightenment. Oftentimes, when people ask me questions, I research the answers and come away from the Bible with a greater understanding myself. However, sometimes, like them, I have more questions than answers, so I reply, “Before I comment, I will study more!”

Brethren, when it comes to Bible questions, remember the following. On one hand, it is easy to start asking various questions the Bible never definitively answers. We begin to focus too much on subjects the Scriptures rarely—if ever—mention. On the other hand, the Bible is very clear and quite dogmatic about certain issues. We need not overlook those defined ideas and facts by stressing the topics of uncertainty.

Second Timothy 2:23 encourages us to answer Bible questions, provided they are neither “foolish” nor “unlearned.” Such inquiries generate “strife” (fighting, trouble, et cetera). Rather than actually leading to a definite point where something is learned and the inquirer is benefited, these questions are just meant to “go around in circles.” The Bible never clearly comments on them so all you are left with is idle speculations of yourself or others. People then try to prove themselves right and they start arguing with others who also may want to be right. Minds spinning, emotions running, people raise their fists and circle the room!

Before we ask Bible questions ourselves, or answer questions from others, let us be mindful of 2 Timothy 2:23. In doing so, we will spare ourselves of Satan’s “devices” meant to discourage Bible discussion altogether!

If our 300 Bible Q&A studies have been a help to you, please remember that you can always donate to us securely at: https://www.paypal.me/ShawnBrasseaux. Email me at arcministries@gmail.com for mailing info if you wish to send a donation using (regular) “snail mail.” Thanks!

Also see:
» How long should I keep witnessing to the same person?
» Why do people get angry when we share right division with them?
» If God knows who will serve Him and who won’t, why witness?