Ask Dr. Barrick
DrBarrick.org
Home | Translation | Q & A | Book Talk | Periodicals | My Blog | Students | Links | Photos | Sermons | Contact

Table of Contents

Please note the title of this page ("Ask Dr. Barrick"). The answers given to the theological and biblical interpretation questions below represent my personal opinions/convictions, which are not necessarily the positions of the institutions or organizations with which I am affiliated. Hopefully, you will find that the answers to biblical questions are founded upon a sound exegesis of the original text of Scripture. Such exegesis is the focus of this website and its author.

Adam's Ribnewbutton.gif

Q: Many preachers have used Genesis 2:18-25 as a selected passage to read at weddings. On a number of occasions I have heard a pastor talk about the fact that God selected a "rib" in Gen. 2:21 to use to "fashion" the woman. I have heard several pastors claim that there is significance for the selection of the rib and wanted to ask you if there is any exegetical support for the "rib?" The pastors I have heard would usually point out the fact that God did not select a bone from the head that might suggest that a woman was "above a man" nor did God select a bone from the foot suggesting that a woman was "beneath a man." Could you share any exegetical insights that support or refute this claim that so many Christians have adopted? In the course of doing a great deal of thinking I thought that perhaps God may have selected a "rib" because the function of the rib protects and conceals the heart of man. By taking a rib the man's heart has been exposed and as a result the man's heart has been made vulnerable. Or to say it another way, "the heart of a man is revealed by a woman."

A: That which was used to make the woman was a portion of Adam's side. It included both bone and flesh. Therefore, it is correct to understand the reference to a rib or portion of a rib (or ribs). Preachers making a point about woman being out of the side to be equal (as opposed to out of the head or the feet) is something passed on from a long time ago (all the way back to Matthew Henry, who may have gotten it from an even earlier source). In my thinking it is certainly possible that these truths might be implied by God's choice of the part of Adam He employed for making the woman, but I don't see it as an exegetical necessity. I suspect it goes all the way back to the ancient rabbis. It appears to me to be just a slight rewording of what is found in the Genesis Rabbah 18:2 (dating back before 425 A.D.). It is a Jewish Midrash on the book of Genesis.

As for your concept of protection, that is possible, but has as much exegetical support as the other--none. Think of it this way:

  • If out of the head, Adam might be severely damaged and harmed.
  • If out of a limb (arm or leg), he would be severely handicapped.
  • If out of the belly, there would be no bone.
The side is the best place so as not to cause severe damage, disfiguring, maiming, or killing Adam. This might be the only significance.

Back to Table of Contents

"Secret" Missions

Q: I'm starting to think about where God is leading me to serve Him in the world. Sometimes in closed countries missionaries apparently gain entrance by telling the government that they are coming to do linguistic study or literacy or some other service. Is it biblical for Christians to hide their intent to proclaim the Gospel? Would I be deceiving government officials by telling them I'm in their country to teach English when I am there to translate the Bible? Am I giving our enemies a reason to accuse me of evil? Am I acting on faith and trust in God, if I have to deceive people to do God's work?

A: "Secret" missions is a concept with which I am very uncomfortable. Such deception certainly does seem to be contrary to a passage like 1 Thessalonians 2:1-7. The Apostle Paul declared that he and his fellow missionaries spoke the Gospel openly (bold, v. 2), not secretly, even though they faced hostile opposition to their ministries. Paul also said that they did not employ any "decoy" (the basic concept in deceit, v. 3). Consider the following common sense observations regarding "secret" missions:

  1. "Secret" missions practices confirm the suspicions of many non-Christians, especially Muslims.
  2. "Secret" missions ignores the respect non-Christians have for Christians who live according to convictions rather than convenience.
  3. "Secret" missions produces added persecution of nationals who must remain even after a missionary is expelled or voluntarily departs. Deception by foreign missionaries taints the testimony of national believers who work together with or under them. It is guilt by association.
  4. "Secret" missions gives in prematurely to gaining access to a so-called closed nation. Personal friends serving previously in such a nation openly declared their purpose and work to the police and government. They were allowed to remain and had unprecedented opportunities to witness to high officials. They also succeeded in protecting the national Christians from harassment and persecution. Success was wedded to honesty and integrity that was admired by non-Christian officials.
  5. "Secret" missions fails to be opportunistic in reaching closed nations by establishing work on the borders of such nations, rather than within, if access is denied. Borders are porous--citizens of closed nations freely pass over borders (e.g., Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Myanmar's border with Thailand, Indonesia's proximity to Singapore, etc.).

Back to Table of Contents

Resurrection vs. Resuscitation

Q: Is is accurate to say that Lazarus, for example, was resurrected? If so, how can passages like 1 Corinthians 15:20 and Acts 26:23 be considered inerrant?

A: Indeed, if Christ is not the first to have been truly resurrected, how can the Scriptures be considered inerrant? Your question demonstrates that you already know the correct answer. Lazarus was not resurrected; he was resuscitated. Was he really dead? Absolutely. Lazarus, and many others like him whom Christ raised from the dead did not experience resurrection and every one of them died again.

Resurrection vs. Resuscitation
1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 48-49, 54

Resurrected BodiesResuscitated Bodies
Imperishable Perishable
Glory Dishonor
Power Weakness
Spiritual Natural
Heavenly Earthy
Immortal Mortal


Could Lazarus walk through walls? No. He did not receive a spiritual, heavenly, glorified body when Christ raised him from the dead. Did he die again? Yes. He did not receive immortality. Scripture says that Christ is the first to rise from the dead because He was the first to be resurrected, the first to be given a glorified body, and the first to put on immortality. All who were raised before Him were merely resuscitated. They were given healed and enlivened bodies that would one day die again. Yes, Hebrews 9:27 declares that the general rule is that each person is appointed to die only once. Divine intervention negated that standard for those who had been resuscitated, just as it was negated in the cases of Enoch and Elijah and will yet be negated for those who will be alive at the time of the future rapture of the church.

Back to Table of Contents

Habitual Sin? (1 John 5:18)

Q: I'm sure that you are familiar with 1 John 5:18 that says "Whoever is born of God does not sin." I was always taught that that meant habitual sin. If what I have been taught is true, then my question is this: When is a sin classified as habitual? Is it after two times or three or four? If I had true Godly repentance towards a particular sin, is it possible to commit that same sin again? Isn't repentance turning away and forsaking the sin? If I really turned away and truly forsook the sin then I would not do it again, would I? and if I did do it again, then I must not have truly repented of it in the first place.

A: Thank you for your important question. You are indeed struggling with a great matter that does have significance for you personally and for all believers who take the opportunity to think upon such a major spiritual issue.

Let's first look at the purpose of 1 John and then at 1 John 3, because that chapter is the first in this epistle to deal with the matter about which you inquired with regard to 5:18. The context and the overall instruction is very important, if we are to rightly understand what is meant by "no one born of God sins" (NASB).

The purpose of 1 John is revealed in 2:1, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." The whole reason for John writing this epistle is to deal with the issue with which you are currently struggling. Treat the entire epistle as God's answer to you (not just 5:18). Note that John has already conceded that every believer sins (1:8, 10). He writes in order to deal with that problem. He is not teaching sinless perfection (the teaching that claims that once one is saved he or she never sins again). On the other hand, John is not allowing the believer to use the absence of sinless perfection as an excuse for countenancing sin in his or her life.

  • 3:1 -- Are you a child of God? That is the first issue to settle. Have you personally appropriated the Gospel message to your own life? Have you specifically, intentionally, willingly believed wholeheartedly that Jesus did die for your sins and that He rose again so that you might have eternal life and live a new life in Him? Review the circumstances of your confession of Christ and be certain of the facts of your conversion.

  • 3:2-3 -- As a child of God (a believer in Christ) you know that you still need purifying and that you will not reach the state of ultimate and complete purity until He returns for His church and you see Him as He is. Note that the daily, progressive cleansing comes through confessing known sin to the Father (1:9), Who then cleanses from all the unrighteous deeds about which we might have ignorance.

  • 3:4 -- The issue of sin in a believer's life is a serious issue, because it is a matter of "lawlessness." By "lawlessness" John means that a believer who sins is manifesting a rebellion against God's authority. Sin involves disobedience. Disobedience involves rejecting the authority of God in a particular area of one's life. It is also important to note that the NASB's "practices sin" is a participle ("doing") followed by the noun ("sin"). The participle is what causes the NASB to translate with "practices" to give the concept of continuing or characteristic sinning as opposed to a single or occasional occurrence of sin.

  • 3:5 -- The sinlessness of Christ is the goal to which we move while the Spirit gradually transforms us into Christ's likeness (see 2 Corinthians 3:18). If we are Christians (= Christ ones), we are to manifest the characteristics of the life of Christ (the same as the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23).

  • 3:6 -- Here is the declaration that, like 5:18, appears to set an impossible standard for the believer. The simple present tense is used for "sins." Some would translate it "continues to sin" because of the tense. Let's first look at the complete context before we jump to that conclusion. Remember that the meaning at first blush cannot be what it first appears, if what John has already written in 1:8 and 10 is true. If believers never sinned, John would have no reason to even write this epistle to begin with. Therefore, let's allow the context (thus, John himself) interpret verse 6 for us.

  • 3:7 -- The opposite of "sins" is "practices righteousness." Righteousness is also the opposite of "unrighteousness," which is what a believer is cleansed from upon confession of known sin. In other words, without confession of sin there is no cleansing from unrighteousness. Without sin there can be no confession of sin. John assumes that the believer will sin. Let's continue on to find out what he means by that.

  • 3:8 -- Here John is especially clear. The NASB says "practices sin" because it is a participle (not the simple present tense that we see in "sins" in verse 6). Again, John demonstrates the seriousness of sin in the believer's life--it is actually a demonstration of being on Satan's side rather than on Christ's. It is behaving as Satan behaves. When we sin, we ally ourselves with the enemy rather than with our Lord.

  • 3:9 -- Here is the second time that a statement like verse 6 is made by John. He returns to the simple present tense, as in verse 6, but uses a different verb ("does" instead of "sins"). When John says "he cannot sin," the idea is that he is not "able to sin." In the light of 1:8 and 10, that cannot mean that he never sins. Instead, it is more like what Paul was describing in Romans 7:14-25. But, I am getting ahead of the text, so let's not stop to read Romans 7 now, let's continue to look at what John says.

  • 3:10 -- John clarifies the matter somewhat for us in this verse. He resorts to the participle again, rather than the simple present. Therefore, the concept of "practice" is accurate--it has to do with characteristic and continuous behavior. The first practice is "righteousness." In other words, that which is right according to divine standards. The second is one example of righteous behavior, "love" for a brother in Christ. "Brother" by context is dealing with fellow believers primarily, but goes beyond that to cover the area of what Christ meant by "love your neighbor." So, love is one of the key issues by which to measure one's own character and faith.

  • 3:11-18 -- John continues in his description of what is involved in loving the brethren. Ask yourself this question: Does loving my fellow believers or my fellow man involve the exclusion of any disagreement or difficulty in our relationships? Does love mean "never having to say I'm sorry"? Does love mean never having to rebuke another person (see Leviticus 19:17)? Does love mean an unbroken fellowship? Are you married? Do you have children? If you do, do you stop loving your spouse or your children when you are disgusted with something one of them has done? Do you stop loving if you yourself have been the grumpy one, who has spoken too harshly and has sinned against one of them by your actions or words?

  • 3:19 -- "We will know by this." To what does "by this" refer? It refers to showing love (verses 17-18). Note that in verses 19-21 John is talking about the matter of assurance of salvation. Do you love your fellow believers? Do you look forward to being with them? Do you enjoy taking opportunities to help them when they have various needs? Do you care about them and their difficulties? When was the last time you did anything that demonstrated that love? Is it a rarity for you to show concern for others? Or, is it unusual for you not to show concern? If it is a rare thing for you to be concerned about another believer's troubles, I would question your salvation. If it is unusual for you to show a lack of concern, then you can be confident that you are born again. Please keep in mind that we are discussing the evidences of salvation, not the causes.

  • 3:20 -- Even believers sometimes have doubts and are self-condemnatory regarding occasional lapses in the evidence of their love for others. But, John indicates that our self-condemnation or lack of assurance is not the determining factor. Our feelings are not what we are to live by. God is greater than our own feelings and heart. We do not lose our salvation because of momentary lapses.

  • 3:21 -- The healthy, happy, confident believer is the one who has managed (by the help of the Spirit) to put together a significant period of time during which he or she has gone without lapses in one's love for others. That believer has little difficulty sleeping at night and does not fret over his or her spiritual state, because God has given assurance. Those who are unhappy, struggling, and discouraged, without assurance, are those who have gone a significant period of time without any evidence of their love for others. In other words, they have been acting like they were enemies of both their fellow believers and of God. Their heart attitude and outward actions reflect more of what one would expect of Satan than of Christ.

  • 3:22 -- Two related evidences are prayer and obedience to the Word. How long has it been since you had an answer to prayer? How consistent have you been to obey what you know you ought to be doing from the Word of God? Check out the list in Ephesians 4:25-6:20 in order to determine if you are being obedient to the Word. Make a list. What are the things that you practice that are condemned in that passage? What are the things that you practice that are commended? Obedience to the Word is non-negotiable. It is a matter of Christ's lordship in your life.

  • 3:23-24 -- In these two verses John summarizes the matter.

Here then are the ultimate answers to your question, on the basis of a careful study of the entirety of 1 John:
  1. No measurement (once, twice, three times, four times) can be placed upon the determination of what 5:18 means by "sins."
  2. John himself indicates clearly that believers do sin (1:8, 10).
  3. John's purpose in writing is to give the believer ways to deal with sin (1:9; 2:1) and to live victorious Christian lives (5:4). If believers never sinned, his purpose in writing would be eliminated.
  4. The most important matter is whether there is evidence in your life that you are a believer--evidence that will also provide you with confidence before God. If that evidence is consistently absent, you need to start at the beginning and submit yourself to Christ totally so that you have a new heart, can walk in newness of life, and see that all things have become new. If this is your situation, meet with a leader in your church and get this settled.
  5. If the problem you're facing involves addiction of any kind (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, etc.), you need accountability from mature believers in the church. They will pray with you and for you. They will hold you accountable. They will help you rely on Christ's wisdom and power to break the addiction. Many addictions include natural consequences that continue beyond salvation. These consequences often are reduced and eliminated through a time of struggle (varying in length in relationship to the intensity of the addiction prior to salvation). For example, an alcoholic who comes to Christ is not immediately healed of sclerosis of the liver. God doesn't promise to reverse all of the consequences of our sinful actions. Sometimes we have to live with the results. That does not nullify our salvation or reduce our need to "work out" (meaning to bring to the surface and demonstrate that which is already planted within our hearts) our "salvation" (the present salvation, deliverance from the power of sin on a daily basis--we have already been completely delivered from the eternal penalty of sin and will, in the future, be delivered from the presence of sin) "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).
What characterizes and dominates your life right now? Your sin "which so easily entangles you" (Hebrew 12:1) or the fruit of the Spirit? How do you think of yourself? How do those who know you best (who also know of your besetting sin) think of you? Are you a believer who has a sin which still "easily entangles you"? Or, are you a sinner who occasionally acts, talks, and looks like a Christian, but are really dedicated to your besetting sin? Which are you going to allow to control your life? Christ? Or, your besetting sin? Now is the time for you to read Romans 7:14-25. Your answer will indicate who you really are and what you need to do about it.

I will be praying for you in this struggle. Your hope and mine is that the very fact that you are recognizing a problem and are interested in finding a biblical solution is evidence of the work of the Spirit in your life. Don't grieve the Spirit by failing to see it through.

Back to Table of Contents

Spiritual Warfare

Q: I have some questions about spiritual warfare. In the MacArthur Study Bible, on the notes for 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, it says that true spiritual warfare is to "assault error with the truth," our weapon being the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God per Ephesians 6 and, as John 17:17 says, "Your Word is truth." This comment makes it seem like Satan and his demons work through the world system, infusing error and lies into everything they can, but does not support the idea of Satan or the demons doing things like throwing books across rooms, appearing through walls or in mirrors, whispering voices, choking the breath from someone (like Darth Vader) or other material manifestations of their form or power. So my question is, does Scripture anywhere describe Satan or his demons as doing these things? Or, is this all movie magic and human inventiveness?

A: Thanks for your email and your questions. I hope the following will provide you with the information you need to understand the issue of demons and spiritual warfare at least a little more completely.

  1. Regarding the activities of Satan and his demons: They have the power to cause physical disorders and some insanity (see Luke 13:11; Matthew 12:22; 17:15-18; Mark 5:2-13). Some of these Gospel accounts may be the origin of the Hollywood concepts that are used to depict demon possession. There is an element of truth, but it has been exaggerated by Hollywood and extrapolated into all kinds of occurrences.

  2. According to 1 John 5:18-19 (cp. Colossians 1:13), there is a difference between the effect Satan has on unbelievers as compared to believers. However, that does not mean that he cannot threaten believers or cause them to fear (cp. 1 Peter 5:8).

  3. Bottom line: Satan is real, dangerous, powerful, and our adversary. However, we are promised victory because of Christ. To have that victory, we must obey Ephesians 6 in putting on ěthe whole armor of Godî--more than just the Word of God, because it is only the sword. The sword is the offensive weapon, not the defensive. The shield of faith is part of the defense and so is the helmet of salvation and the breastplate of righteousness. In at least part, this is the equivalent of being clothed with Christ (Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27).

  4. Prayer: According to Ephesians 6:18, prayer is part of the stand we must take against Satan and his demons against whom we do battle (v. 12). Since Paul spoke of the spiritual warfare in his instruction concerning prayer, I think it is fitting that it forms a part of our prayer life. However, we too often attribute too many things to Satan. He is not the only enemy. Our own flesh is an enemy and the world system is an enemy. Every attack is not from Satan himself, nor from one of his demons. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. There are some who have become so dominated by the concept of spiritual warfare that it dominates their prayer life and even their speaking and teaching. In Acts 19:13-17 we see what happens to those who meddle in matters about which they know little and who do not know Christ as they should. Matthew 12:43-45 shows what happens when a demon is cast out, but the person out of whom he has been cast is not saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The best form of exorcism is the Gospel being believed by an individual and that individual becoming indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If we would spend more time evangelizing and less time attempting to cast Satan or a demon out of someone, we might actually wage the spiritual battle with far greater success.

Back to Table of Contents

Trinity in Genesis 18-19?

Q: Is the reference to Abram seeing 3 people when Yahweh appeared to him a very unique theophany of the complete Trinity in the Old Testament--much like Matthew 3 when the Father's voice came out of heaven, Jesus was in the water, and the Holy Spirit came down as a dove? In Genesis 18:20-22 Yahweh said that He was going to depart for Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, the two men who turned away toward Sodom and Gomorrah were Yahweh, even though Abraham still stood before Yahweh after the men left. This could only be possible (for Yahweh to leave and yet still remain) if Yahweh was a Trinity, three persons and yet only one God. Genesis 19:24 is indisputable in showing two different spatial locations of Yahweh on earth and in heaven. I think the reason why most commentators dismiss this example as a reference to the Trinity is because they stop following the story at 19:1 and conclude the three men were Jesus and two created angels. But as you will notice, my strongest points are found after this verse later into chapter 19.

A: Thank you for the question and explanation of your tentative conclusion. It is necessary to look more closely at the passages in question. Read it carefully and then go through the following observations:

  1. Only the one person is referred to as Yahweh in Genesis 18 (esp. vv. 9-10), not the three, nor the two.

  2. Note the careful distinction in referring to the one person with "he/him" (3ms) and the three together as "they/them" throughout the passage. There is only one who speaks with Abraham.

  3. The distinction in 18:22 is quite specific. Only Yahweh remained behind with Abraham.

  4. The one remaining with Abraham claims to be the one who will personally judge and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (18:21, 26).

  5. Referring to individuals as "messengers" does not automatically equate with the technical title "messenger of Yahweh."

  6. In 19:13 the two messengers themselves say that Yahweh sent them--a clear indication of distinction.

  7. In 19:14 they indicate that Yahweh (a distinct entity from them) will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

  8. Genesis 19:24 is better understood as the individual with Abraham (the pre-incarnate Son) performing the immediate judgment passed to Him from Yahweh in heaven (the Father).

  9. John 1:18 declares that God the Father has never been seen by any man. That excludes Him from the three individuals who appeared to Abraham. Note, also, that even the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah saw the two messengers--thus, neither could have been God the Father.

  10. It is not unusual for the Son to be accompanied by angels (Gen 28:12-13; Matt 25:31; John 1:51; 20:12; Acts 1:10).

  11. Hebrews 13:2 appears to be a reference to Abraham's experience in Genesis 18. Obviously, if that is so, only one of the persons could have been deity.
Therefore, it appears that the Trinity in Genesis 18-19 involves no more than two Persons only in 19:24. The two individuals who spirited Lot and his daughters out of town were only angelic messengers, not persons of the godhead.

Back to Table of Contents

Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8

Q: I am teaching a Sunday School class through the book of Ephesians and I am at Ephesians 4:8 where Paul uses Psalm 68:18 to make a point of Christ's ascension. Was this passage in Psalm 68:18 meant to be prophetic or did Paul just use it for an illustration to help the Ephesians understand the ascension and descension of Christ? Paul also changed "receiving gifts" in Psalm 68:18 to "giving gifts" in Ephesians 4:8. Please help me with the accommodations of the New Tesatament writers.

A: Regarding Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8, I think that Archer and Chirichigno as well as Kidner have adequately answered the questions about how and why Paul utilized Psalm 68:18 the way he did. They have shown that the apostle Paul did not change the meaning of Psalm 68:18 taken in its total context, but merely utilized Psalm 68:18's wording up to the point where he departed from the wording in order to summarize the overall meaning of the passage. In place of the Greek and Hebrew words in these sources, I have inserted a translation of the Greek and Hebrew in square brackets. Gleason L. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 73: "68:19b; MT [you receive gifts among men] = LXX [you receive gifts among men] (very literal!) but Eph 4:8b [you give gifts to men]. Note that instead of [among] we have dative [to men] in which the deviation is the main point of the quotation!(E). But since God does not require gifts from men for His own sake, the Targum (which reads as follows: ... Thou hast ascended to the firmament: Thou has led captivity captive; Thou has taught them the words of the law: Thou hast given gifts to the children of men") has rightly derived the inference that God has received or taken gifts in hand in order to distribute them among ... men, rather than His having received gifts "consisting of" ... men or "among" men. Who could have given Him men whom He did not already have under His sovereign rule? Therefore, Paul has followed the inferential interpretation that was later found written down when the Targum received a stable written form but which had existed for centuries in oral form. God received/took those gifts for distribution among men ... and specifically those men and women who were in covenant relationship with Him."

The (E) included in the citation from Archer and Chirichigno represents their classification of this quotation in a category they define as follows: "This category of quotations consists of those that give the impression that unwarranted liberties were taken with the Old Testament text in the light of its context. But when due consideration is given to the basic message of the Hebrew passage and the particular purpose that the New Testament author had in mind (under the guidance of God's Spirit), in each case it will be seen that, far from wresting or perverting the original verse, the inspired servant of Jesus brings out in a profound and meaningful way its implications and connotations" (xxviii).

Derek Kidner, Psalms 1‚72, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), 242, fn 2: "Where the MT reads 'received gifts among men' (or perhaps 'consisting of', or, as in Ugaritic, 'from men'?), Paul has 'gave gifts to men'. This summarizes rather than contradicts the psalm, whose next concern is with the blessings God dispenses (19ff., 35)."

My understanding is that Psalm 68:18 is a Spirit-revealed illustration that Paul, under the Spirit's superintendence, used of Christ's ascension. Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of Psalm 68:18 in the future establishment of His kingdom. Because He is that King, He has, therefore, the authority to distribute gifts to men even at the commencement of the NT church age on the basis of what He has already done and what He will yet do.

Back to Table of Contents

Psalm 8

Q: I am preaching on Psalm 8. I was wondering if you have a take on 8:2 (8:3 Hebrew)? In what way does the baby put down the adversary? It is amazing how many different answers I have seen. Second, I am wondering what is your take on the exaltation of mankind later in the psalm. Is it a already not yet thing?

A: Psalm 8:2 is quoted in Matthew 21:16 where it is applied to the praise that children offer. The thought is consistent with 1 Corinthians 1:27b. Beyond that, I think the commentators are guessing. Praise is the theme of this psalm. Human beings (even infants in their babbling) are the only creatures capable of such praise. The enemies of God are confounded and condemned in their unbelief by such praise. If even the infant praises God, how slow and witless the ungodly appear.

Verses 5-6 are consistently applied to Jesus in the New Testament: Hebrews 2:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:27. Similar phraseology is employed in Ephesians 1:22. The ultimate dignity of man is displayed in Christ, the supreme representative of the Adamic race in his humanity. Before the fall, Adam's destiny was to be what Christ would be as the Son of Man. The humanity of Christ, the second Adam, is what God originally intended for mankind. We will still experience a measure of that as believers in the resurrection when we reign with Christ.

Back to Table of Contents

Old Testament Sanctification

Q: If we were given the Spirit at Pentecost, how did sanctification look for Old Testament saints?

A: Sanctification for Old Testament saints "looked" outwardly much the same as for New Testament saints because they were still to be holy because the Lord their God was holy (see Lev 19:2 and cp. 1 Pet 1:16). Sanctification was God's work in the Old Testament just as much as in the New Testament (Exod 31:13; Lev 20:8). The Spirit of God was even then called the "Holy Spirit" (Isa 63:10, 11), indicating that He was viewed as having some relationship to holiness, whether or not He was the Person of the Godhead directly involved in sanctifying Old Testament saints. He was present and performed His work even though He was not yet indwelling the Old Testament saint (see John 14:17). Sanctification would still have been related to the Old Testament saint's obedience to the Word of God (Ps 119:11, 67, 133; cp. John 17:17). Ultimately, we must realize that God has been involved in sanctifying His saints in every era. How He chooses to do that is much clearer now as the result of the New Testament's revelation. Present clarity about sanctification does not indicate an absence of sanctification prior to the New Testament. God can sanctify by means of any of the Persons of the Godhead He might choose to perform it by and yet the outcome look the same. It doesn't require the Spirit's indwelling either. God's location does not limit what He can do. The indwelling ministry of the Spirit did not expand the power of God or improve His work--it was only a change in the way He chose to perform the same work He had already been performing.

Back to Table of Contents

Christophany and Theophany

Q: What are "Christophany" and "Theophany"? What are some examples?

A: A Christophany is an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. Such an appearance can also be called a Huiophany (= appearance of the Son). In all reality, because no one has ever seen the Father, all Theophanies (appearances of God) in the OT are essentially Christophanies (= Huiophanies). Christophany is a confusing term to most since Christ = Messiah and the Messiah did not appear until the birth of Jesus who is the Messiah. That is why many prefer to use either Theophany or Huiophany. So, all three terms are referring to the manifestations of the Second Person of the Godhead in the OT. Examples would include the appearance to Abraham in Genesis 18, the appearance in the pillar of fire and pillar of cloud in Exodus 13:21, the appearance to Joshua in Joshua 5:13-15, and the appearance to Isaiah in Isaiah 6. An excellent book to read about this matter is: James A. Borland, Christ in the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978)--it has recently been reprinted by Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Back to Table of Contents

Titus 1:6

Q: I am working through the Titus 1:6 issue (children who believe or faithful children). What support is there in this passage or elsewhere in Scripture for one view over the other? Do you have any good sources you could recommend for my own research/study?

A: One of the issues in this verse is whether it applies to only those children still under the authority of the home or whether it equally applies to those adult children who are outside the home. You'll note that John MacArthur (see the note on Titus 1:6 in the MacArthur Study Bible) distinguishes Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4 by indicating that the former looks at older children while the latter focuses on young children in the home. It would seem preferable to see both passages identifying the same requisite rather than two different qualifications. If both are significant enough to include in the list of qualifications for elders, why is only one each listed in the two lists? The term translated "dissipation" in Titus 1:6 (NASB) certainly does appear to refer to older offspring, but that may be all that either passage intends. One could argue that "faithful" is a better translation because it is more logically the opposite of what is involved in "dissipation" than "believing" would be.

The wording of Titus 1:6 is unique in that it uses the verb echo ("have" or "possess") in a phrase that is literally "children having faithfulness" or "children having faith." To the English Christian ear the latter translation sounds most familiar, so one is tempted to go with the sense that the children are to be "believers." However, the phraseology could equally well mean "keeping faith" or "staying loyal" or "maintaining obedience." The key exegetical issue is the meaning of pistos. Does it mean "believing," "faithful," or "obedient"? From the lexicons it is quite clear that the latter two are frequent occurrences in the Pauline epistles. Just look at the 17 uses of this adjective in the pastoral epistles alone: "faithful" (1 Tim 1:12; 3:11; 2 Tim 2:2, 13; Titus 1:6 [although some argue for "believing"]), "credible/trustworthy" (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 1:9; 3:8), and "believing" (1 Tim 4:3, 10, 12 [which could equally be "faithful"]; 5:16; 6:2 [2x--but, the second time could be "faithful"]). In my mind, however, the parallelism of 1 Timothy 3:4 is the strongest argument for "faithful" or "loyal" as the meaning of pistos in Titus 1:6.

The careful exegete must note, also, that when pistos modifies a noun like "children" (as in Titus 1:6) it is always "faithful" or "trustworthy/credible." When it is independent (an adjective employed as a substantive) it means "believing one" or "believer." Note this detail in 1 Timothy 4:3, 10, 12. Translating pistos as "faithful (to parents)" does not indicate whether the child is a believer. Obviously, a believing child is far better dispositioned to be obedient and submissive to parental authority than an unbelieving child, but salvation is no more in view than it is in 1 Timothy 3:4.

Let's take another approach in attempting to understand Titus 1:6. Theologically (by which I mean the totality of the teachings of Scripture), parents do not have the ability to save their children or to guarantee their salvation. There is, it is true, a certain amount of accountability in how a child is raised (cf. Prov 22:6). However, nowhere does Scripture indicate that a father can determine the faith of his child. Each person is individually and personally responsible for his or her acceptance or rejection of the Gospel. Parents are not the Holy Spirit. Godly, obedient, consistently faithful pastors leading their homes with the highest spiritual wisdom, character, and deeds can experience a child who does not believe in the Gospel. Sometimes a child will not believe until much later in life. Is that man to be excluded from pastoring because of that? What about the pastor whose children make professions of faith and live their lives in submission to their parents in a model home, but one of those children later in life throws it away and becomes a profligate prodigal? Do we then strip that individual's father of his eldership and pastorate in his fortieth year of faithful and consistent service in the Word of God? If we insist that Titus 1:6 specifies that an elder or pastor must have believing children to be in office or to retain his office, we will end up throwing a godly elder out of office. And what would be the real reason?--because he is not God and cannot guarantee the salvation of every one of his children.

Unfortunately, very few exegetical commentaries deal with the intricacies of Titus 1:6. Most just give their opinion without offering any technical support. The commentary with the fullest treatment of this verse is John MacArthur, Jr., Titus, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996). A commentary I would highly recommend on just about every verse except Titus 1:6 is Homer A. Kent, The Pastoral Epistles (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969; Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1982). This volume is one every pastor should have on his shelf.

Back to Table of Contents

Traditional Mt. Sinai

Q: Noticing the general barrenness and dryness of the area around Mt. Sinai (the traditional site), a student asked me where they would get water and food for the 2 million or so people that were there (extrapolated from Exodus 12:37, which says there were 600,000 men). Do you have any thoughts on that or can you direct me to a source that might help me get an answer?

A: Your question indicates that your student was perplexed about how the Israelites could live in such an arid region. Indeed, the majority of the time the Israelites spent in the wilderness after leaving Egypt was spent in just that type of environment. Consider the following:

  • Exodus 12:39 says that they had brought unleavened dough with them out of Egypt. That would provide some food only for a short time.
  • The Israelites complained about the absence of water during the first three days out of Egypt, but God provided water for them by changing bitter water to potable water (Exodus 15:22-25).
  • A few days later, when the unleavened dough and any other provisions had been depleted, the Israelites began to complain about a lack of food. That's when God began the provision of manna and quail (Exodus 16:1-18).
  • Divine provision of manna lasted the entire 40 years the Israelites were in the wilderness (Exodus 16:35).
  • When the Israelites once again ran out of water, God again provided it for the nation (Exodus 17:1-6).
  • Even while the Israelites were at Mt. Sinai and had committed transgression in the matter of idolatrous worship of the golden calf, God in His gracious mercy continued to provide what they needed for food (the manna) and water (Nehemiah 9:18-21).
  • God's special provision for His people should have caused them to trust Him completely. To their great shame, they continued complaining and repeatedly disobeyed Him. That's why an entire generation of Israelites died in the wilderness and were denied access to the land of promise.

Therefore, for those who accept the authority of Scripture, the answer to your student's question is that there were not sufficient food supplies nor water in the wilderness (including Mt. Sinai) to sustain the Israelites. They would have perished without divine intervention. They had enough food and water only because God personally and miraculously supplied those provisions for them whenever they were needed. The Lord continued to do so throughout the entire 40 years of wandering regardless of the austere landscape in which they found themselves. Thus, such a barren and arid region as that found at the traditional site of Mt. Sinai is in perfect harmony with the Scriptural account.

Back to Table of Contents

Yahweh

Q: I am looking for a source (short & long) that explains the name Yahweh. What would you recommend?

A: For Yahweh, see the following:

  • Terence Fretheim, "Yahweh," in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. by Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 4:1295-1300.
  • Charles R. Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," Bibliotheca Sacra 142/565 (Jan 1985): 38-51.
  • R. Laird Harris, "The Pronunciation of the Tetragram," in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. by John H. Skilton ([Nutley, N.J.]: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), 215-24.
  • Louis F. Hartman, "God, Names of," in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. by Cecil Roth (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1971), 7:680-81.
  • J. Barton Payne, "hawa," [#484] in TWOT, 1:210-12.
  • Edward J. Young, "The Call of Moses: Part II," Westminster Theological Journal 30/1 (Nov 1967): 15-23.
Back to Table of Contents

Psalm 22:16 (17 in Hebrew)

Q: In Psalm 22:16 the Hebrew ari or aryeh has the meaning of lion (TWOT-Harris, Archer, Waltke) or like a lion. In our English translations it is rendered "pierced."

Interpretation.jpeg The literal rendering "For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They lion my hands and my feet" (NAS) as opposed to the translated "pierced" does not make quite enough sense. How do you get pierced from a word that means literally "lion"? The commentary I have on the subject offers little in way of an easy fix as well. Keil and Delitzsch remain silent, Matthew Henry says that the text was corrupted by the Jews. Spurgeon focuses on the cross and does not deal with the problem of interpretation. Out of the resources I have to refer to Leupold gives the most sufficient answer in his Exposition of the Psalms. The Septuagint and the Vulgate obviously support the translation to be "pierced." My commentaries and Hebrew tools did not touch on:

  1. Is it possible that the Jews corrupted the text? Are the reasons to believe that historically, theologically, etc.?

  2. How did the translation get "pierced" from "like a lion"?

  3. Why and how does the Septuagint and Vulgate differ from the Hebrew Text since they support a different rendering than the literal interpretation of the word?

A: Each of the three questions shall be handled in order:

  1. There does not seem to be any reason to think that the Jews corrupted the text. If that had been the case, I would think that it might have already started with the Jewish translators of the Septuagint. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, provided an appendix (Appendix IX. List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied in Ancient Rabbinic Writings) that lists Ps 22:15 (16 in Hebrew) as one which has a "remarkable application to the Messiah" in the Talmud. Nothing is said about Ps 22:17. The Jews tended to change that which they had previously declared to be Messianic. According to the German evangelical, E. W. Hengstenberg, the tampering with the text actually was initiated by Gentiles, German liberals, who sought to remove the messianic prophecy by changing the text in this verse. For a full explanation, including a footnote of the technical details of the Hebrew language here, see E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1970, a reprint and abridgement by Thomas Kerchever Arnold of Reuel Keith's English translation from the original German, 1847), 82-85. The Psalms Targum, probably dating from A.D. 100-400, reads, "Like a lion they bite my hands and my feet." If the text were taken in that fashion (the verb "pierced" being replaced by the prepositional phrase "like a lion"), the added verb ("bite") could still give the same picture and meaning as "pierced"--the lion's teeth pierce the feet--perhaps a metaphorical description of the "bite" of the crucifixion nail(s). The Early Church did not begin to make a specific reference to Ps 22:16 as a reference to the piercing of Jesus' feet until the second century (Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian). It is interesting that Ps 22:7 (Heb., 8) and 15 (Heb., 16) are applied by the Jews to the Messiah in Yalkut on Isa 40 (see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 9). That means that very early Jewish interpretation of the psalm was messianic.

    2. Besides the explanation given in the footnote by Edersheim (see my reference above), there is a detailed explanation of the various potential readings in the commentary by J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966 reprint of the 4th revised edition published by George Bell and Sons in 1878), 1:246-48. It is not at all unlikely, nor is it contrary to the rules of classical Hebrew to read what is in the Hebrew text as a verb instead of the prepositional phrase. The form would then be a plural participle in the construct state and have a meaning something like "piercers of my hands and my feet." Even if the form is taken as "like a lion," it is not a straightforward form in Hebrew--there is difficulty with either interpretation on the basis of the usual expected forms for both "like a lion" and "piercers of." Both Hengstenberg and Perowne (along with many other commentators and translators) who reach the conclusion that the piercing of the hands and feet is involved.

    3. Given the explanations of Hengstenberg and Perowne, the LXX and Syriac (as well as a number of other ancient versions) are not translating anything different than what is in the current Hebrew text. They are either, (a) taking the form as an unusual plural participle in the construct state, meaning "piercers of," or (b) taking, as the Targum does, "like a lion" (also an unusual form in Hebrew) as requiring a verb to complete the simile and thus employ "pierce" (having the same concept as the Targum's "bite").
Back to Table of Contents

Homosexuality

Q: When Christians say that Leviticus tells us that homosexuality is an abomination to God, critics respond by saying, "Okay, it's an abomination. Do you then stone disobedient children?" They then go on to list many more laws, and the comparison grows more absurd. I'm sure you've seen this many times. The point is a powerful one, because Christians usually can't answer. So ... how would you answer?

A: The argument that the prohibition of homosexuality is but a part of the Law of Moses that has been replaced by the New Testament and grace is refuted by the simple fact that the condemnation of homosexuality is not limited to the Law of Moses. The New Testament in the era of grace condemns it, too. Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10. In the New Testament it is still a sin against God. The example you cited (disobedient children) is a failed analogy because disobedience to parents is still a sin in New Testament times. If homosexuality is equal to disobedience to parents, then it is still a sin. All that has changed is the means of punishment.

Back to Table of Contents



Banner
© William D. Barrick 2004
Hosted by 1and1.com